It is never reassuring when your role model kills himself. A few weeks back, I examined some literary remains of the late David Foster Wallace, now held at the University of Texas - an irony Wallace might have appreciated, given that he once referred to "Two crew-cut and badly burned U. Texas guys." On this Austin afternoon, the glare from a glass display case was magnified by the brilliance of his writing. In both novels and nonfiction, Wallace investigates the mystery of modern happiness - but it appears the author could never find the answer to this question. Worse yet, maybe he did.
Defining happiness has long been the prized object of ethics; the nonprogress in this area is a testament to philosophy. That students still quote Aristotle on happiness is both noble and embarrassing.
But happiness has recently played hard-to-get with a few new suitors. Darwinian psychology, modern economics and utilitarianism - growing up as boyhood friends in the optimistic Victorian age - have sought the elusive dame. We are left with their sloppy methods.
The first difficulty arises in how to objectively quantify happiness. Now, philosophers might have a discussion about "ideal observers," but recently, psychologists have also taken aim at measuring happiness. Using surveys, studies and the occasional brain scan, ambitious conclusions have been reached. These generalizations sell well in textbooks and paperbacks. Plus economists can use these estimations of relative utility to make accurate policy. But such statistical results are too vague and subjective for individual benefit. I will lie on every survey and act like a buffoon in every social experiment until these pseudoscientific methods are improved. On a scale of 1 to 5, I strongly disagree with positive psychology.
Without outside measurement, you must experience happiness to know it. This is the most common "question" about happiness: How can it be achieved? The answers here are infinite. Every week, The New York Times gives us a new definition of happiness. The main disagreement, however, is on the nature of happiness: Does it come from external circumstances or mental perspective? Western societies tend to base happiness in material gain; Eastern thought focuses on mental states. Our culture takes the convenient answer of both: Success can make you happy, but so can positive thinking! Philosophy Prof. David Sosa, himself a "U. Texas" guy, provides his response. "Happiness, like knowledge, and unlike belief and pleasure, is not a state of mind," he said. "Empire of Illusion" author Chris Hedges agrees; if happiness is based on perspective, then real suffering can be ignored.
All this talk about happiness is making me miserable. I feel trapped - like somehow happiness is the only option. It is impossible to criticize happiness without coming off like a spoiled child, left unsatisfied with the generous gift of the world. Rejecting happiness seems like a rejection of everything this nation has strived for, evidence of a generation ungrateful for the sacrifices toward the American pursuit. But we have made no progress and need to go further.
To get a firm logical grip, let us return to the 19th century utilitarians, including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who were the most prominent theorists of happiness. They posited simply that happiness means more pleasure and less pain. There is also an axiom of self-interest: Man always seeks his own happiness. Thus all other activities, such as helping others, are really done to make ourselves happy; we would be less pleased if we had not done them. "Students in introductory philosophy courses torture their professors with this reasoning," writes philosopher Judith Lichtenberg. "And its logic can seem inexorable."
But a voice from the past promises clarity. Listen to philosopher Bertrand Russell, the mad-hatter himself: "John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, offers an argument which is so fallacious that it is hard to understand how he can have thought it valid." As Russell and Lichtenberg explain, not everything is done for our own happiness - this is a binding tautology. There are still scenarios where we place ourselves as alternate.
But today's culture has adopted this restrictive utilitarian rhetoric. Happiness is placed as the ultimate goal - the only term that makes sense to us all. Yet the term "happiness" is so vague that it can be hijacked by nearly any economic or commercial promise.
This rhetoric of happiness is literally selfish; worshipping individual happiness is the epitome of our vanity. When making course selections, they say: "Do what makes you happy." Yes, and maybe something more.
Aaron Eisen's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.eisen@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 5 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 19 hours agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
