•

in Huxley's Brave New World, everyone takes drugs given out for free by the government in order to be happy

•

most people see this to be a monstrous future scenario, but it's difficult to say why, since in the scenario, everyone in the world is happy, so what could be wrong with that?

•

the reason why this scenario makes us uneasy is that the definition of happiness in the novel is simplified to mean no more and no less than to experience pleasant bodily sensations more and more of the time

•

since our biochemical system naturally limits the number and duration of pleasant sensations in the body, the only way to make people experience a high level of well-being and pleasure over long period of time is to manipulate this biochemical system with the help of drugs and other medical treatments

•

however, today, most people would define happiness as a sustained sense of well-being and pleasure and this is how science generally defines it

•

but not everyone defines happiness this way

•

Daniel Kahneman's studies on happiness

•

asked people to describe their days in great detail

•

900 working class women in Texas

•

break up her day into segment of 5 minutes, write what she is doing each 5 minutes, and how much she enjoyed it

•

resulted in many mini stories, e.g. talked on phone to friend, took bus to work, etc.

•

results

•

some of the things they disliked most were taking care of their children

•

changing diapers

•

washing dirty clothes

•

preparing food for them

•

dealing with temper tantrums and children fighting

•

on average they found more joy at work than being with their children at home

•

also asked them to rate their chief source of happiness

•

most mentioned their children as a major source of happiness

•

even though the most of the individual acts of taking care of children were rated as least enjoyable

•

how do we explain this discrepancy?

•

i.e. the acts of changing diapers and washing clothes were rated as the least pleasant, yet her children were rated as her chief source of happiness

•

theory #1: people in general don't really know what makes them happy

•

theory #2: happiness is something different than pleasure, it is not the surplus of pleasant moments over unpleasant moments

•

our values make a difference in how we interpret our lives as happy or not, regardless of the amount of pleasure in them

•

a meaningful and happy life can be led doing acts which are not pleasurable

•

and a meaningless and unhappy life can be led doing acts which are pleasurable

•

happiness isn't comfort or pleasure, happiness is above all finding meaning in what we do

•

this approach has important implications for the history of happiness

•

people at all times in history have probably felt the same pleasant and unpleasant sensations in their body

•

but the meaning that people give to these experiences are very different in various cultures and throughout history

•

this implies that life in our modern age is not necessarily better or happier than life in previous eras

•

much in the Middle Ages was much less comfortable

•

religions and philosophies and metaphors of life play a larger role in giving people meaning no matter what era they live in

•

problem with this approach

•

according to scientific point of view, human life has no meaning

•

humans are the outcome of evolutionary processes which operate without any cosmic purpose of goal or meaning

•

our actions and lives are not part of a some divine cosmic plan

•

if the earth would be destroyed by a meteor tomorrow, the rest of the universe would go on operating according to the laws of physics just as it always has

•

according to science, any meaning we ascribe to our lives is a not based on what is true in the natural world, but a fiction derived for a particular contextual purpose

•

even the meanings that modern people attribute to their lives: capitalism, communism, feminism, consumerism, they are made up values in order to give life meaning that is not there in the natural physical world

•

a scientist may say that his life is meaningful because he increases the store of human knowledge

•

a soldier may say his life is meaningful because he defends his homeland

•

a business person may say his life is meaningful because he is building a coming and giving people work

•

from the point of view of what is true of the natural world, these meanings are no different than Medieval people going on a Crusade or praying with rosary beads or building a cathedral

•

the conclusion of this line of thinking is that the real key to having meaning in your life is either to (1) synchronize your personal delusions of the meaning of life with the prevailing collective delusions of your day in order to make them seem more real, or (2) develop an ability to trick yourself into feeling that your own unique and temporary delusions of the meaning of life are somehow bound up into the cosmic order of things and therefore in some sense real

•

for some people, this is a depressing conclusion because it means that happiness is dependent on finding a way to maintain a delusion and to remain so simple-minded that you are continuously duped by it

•

for others, however, this act of continually constructing meaning in a meaningless world, is itself a joyful endeavor, and leads to a life of continually new modes of meaning which maintain your happiness, all based on an honesty which acknowledges the lack of meaning we have found our natural world to have, an honesty which, in our modern age, is credible and respectable

•

if happiness is based on seeing life as more meaningful, then to be happier, we need to delude ourselves more effectively

•

Buddhist view of happiness

•

Buddhism assigned happiness more importance than any other religion in history

•

the basic premise of monotheist religions is: given that God exists, what does he want from me?

•

in contrast, Buddhism asks: given that suffering exists, how do I liberate myself from suffering and enjoy happiness?

•

today, brain scientists are examining the brain waves of Buddhist monks to see what happens physically when these monks meditate

•

Buddhism shares the basic insight to the biological approach to happiness, namely, that happiness results from processes occurring within ones body and not from events happening in the outside world

•

people crave to experience more pleasant feeling and avoid suffering

•

the problem according to Buddhism is that our feelings are mere transient vibrations, you have to constantly chase good feelings and chase away feelings of suffering

•

Buddhism asks why we struggle to achieve something that disappears as soon as it arises

•

the root of suffering is not the feeling of pain or meaninglessness, but suffering is the never-ending pursuit of ephemeral feeling

•

because of this pursuit of pleasant feelings, we suffer, since even when we feel pleasure, we are fearful that this feeling may soon disappear

•

people are are not liberated from suffering when they experience this or that pleasure which soon will disappear, but when they realize the impermanent nature of their feelings and therefore stop craving and chasing them

•

this is the aim of Buddhism mediation practices

•

feel the rising and falling of emotions

•

but you learn to stop craving to have particular feelings and you just watch the feelings come and go

•

this idea is so alien to Western culture, that when New Age movements encountered Buddhist thought, meditation, and insights, they taught that they should connect with their inner feelings, or happiness begins within

•

Buddhism actually teaches that happiness is independent of our inner feelings

•

the scientific study of happiness is young

•

we are still searching for the proper research methods

•

now it is important to get to know as many different approaches to happiness

•

most history books don't talk about the development of happiness throughout time

•

this is the biggest lack that we have in the study of history