An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference)

So, what do we have here? An author talking about metaphysical speculations, Christian beliefs, and the so desired(and abstract) "meaning".

"Meaning" is a funny thing. As the author says, we should pursuit it instead of "happiness". The question is: why do humans chase meaning? In my view, it is because it helps us endure the pains of life. If we go through a terrible situation for no reason at all, it feels way worse than if there was a "meaning" behind it all. That means that "meaning" is just a tool for the increase of our pleasure and the decrease of our pain.

Another factor that contributes to the human desire for "meaning" is our difficulty in accepting our own insignificance. It has always been hard for us to understand that we're just some random creatures walking on this planet, born not for a reason, but only by chance. In a desperate attempt to change that, we try to give "meaning" to ourselves, which would be fulfilled either in this World or in a theoretical "Next World".

Though I understand where it comes from, I still think this is not a helpful tool. Just like any other supernatural or abstract concept, it can quickly degenerate into senseless goals built upon absolutely nothing. Pure rationalizations of the human mind. That's why I like the teachings of Epicureanism on how to cultivate a good life: they are tangible and "real", not based on some abstraction or transcendence. Sensations are here and now, being way more reliable than abstract concepts.

The word "happiness" needs to be defined...because it is both the transitory feeling that arises when human needs are met/fulfilled, and also the feeling of being okay with (or satisfied with) how one's life is unfolding.

We need to feel that there are more moments of joy than vexation, and we need to feel like our life course is sailing along in a satisfactory way.

The quest and desire for "meaning" is brought about by feeling vexation and dissatisfaction with one's life. There is a feeling that something is missing, but what it is...is a mystery... because civilization (and the modern world) has made it difficult to get certain basic human needs met. And then these very basic needs are ignored and made out to be unimportant. Instead there is "God" or "helping others through volunteer work".

The mystery needs to be uncovered, and we can begin to see an indication in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

In the modern world everyone has a unique take on what is felt to be individually "meaningful" (or important). But something must be tied into a bigger picture of the human life cycle ...either with family or with chosen friends. And then, seeing what came before, what is occuring now, and what will continue on in the future (the next generation) is a kind of transcendence -- seeing the cycle of life and feeling a part of that cycle of life. I would say that this would be an "Epicurean meaning of life" -- both seeing "the way things are", and "teaching the way things are".

I hesitated to weigh in on this thread, but let's dive in...

Quote from Cassius

the argument equating happiness with materialism and that consumerism leads to unhappiness, etc.

Quote from Kalosyni

The word "happiness" needs to be defined...because it is both the transitory feeling that arises when human needs are met/fulfilled, and also the feeling of being okay with (or satisfied with) how one's life is unfolding.

Quote from Cassius

I would say that the decision to seek "meaning" rather than happiness is directly related to buying in, or being browbeaten, into thinking that pleasure and happiness are disreputable goals.

These are exactly the reasons I personally dislike using the word "happiness" itself. In modern Western culture, this is what happiness means for most people: a fizzy, effervescent quality that many people see as inherently short-lived. "Are you happy?" means, it seems to me, to most people to convey a bubbly, giddy feeling. Of course, you're not feeling like that all the time. To recalibrate people's idea of "being happy," I would prefer using a different word for the overall direction of one's life. This sentence from a paper available through the National Library of Medicine illustrates my point:

the term “happiness” has been used to refer to momentary assessments of affect as well as to overall life evaluations. This absence of precision precludes understanding of the complexities known to coexist. For example, a person who is engaged in stressful or difficult activities, such as working toward an education or a job promotion, may find substantial meaning or satisfaction with life overall; a person who is generally suffering or lacking hope may experience temporary reprieve in an enjoyable moment.

Although it sounds clinical, "subjective well-being" (which I would maintain is a decent translation of ancient Greek eudaimonia) is a better word/phrase to use. I realize it's not going to catch on, but SWB is a common acronym for it in the academic literature now it seems. Again, I'm not advocating replacing "happiness" with SWB, but that's one of the reasons I tend to use well-being and not happiness when this comes up.

Quote from SillyApe

"meaning" is just a tool for the increase of our pleasure and the decrease of our pain... Though I understand where it comes from, I still think this is not a helpful tool.

That's pretty well put.

"Meaning" means many things to many different people. To me, it has the same problems as "happiness." "Meaning" can mean almost anything you want it to mean. It expands to fill any semantic field you want. "Happiness" is transitory and tied to materialistic culture; I'll just say "I live for meaning." No, you're just transposing one for the other.

I think we are all striving for "subjective well-being," a sense of satisfaction with our lives, a feeling that we're headed in the right direction, even though we will, of course, be faced with pain, hardship, loss, and so on, but inwardly we can face those things within an overall disposition of mental fortitude and satisfaction with the way we live and the way we decide to approach life. If I'm going to dedicate myself to the idea that "the wise man has more reasons for joy than vexation" that's a choice I make to maintain my "subjective well-being." I will face the day looking for moments of joy, pleasure, kindness, and reasons to have a positive affect and approach to life *without* any Pollyanna-rose-colored-glasses. I won't be a pushover or a milquetoast doormat. But I will also not be a sad sack with a dark cloud hanging over my head my whole life.

"The Universe" does not imbue our lives with "purpose" or "meaning." There is no "ultimate meaning." Your "life's purpose" is not "revealed" to you. If one wants their life to have "meaning," that's self-imposed. And, to me, "meaning" is simply that which gives you pleasure and a sense of well-being in your own life. Your purpose and meaning may hold no meaning for me. We can't tell anyone "your purpose is wrong" or "you're pursuing the wrong meaning to life."

Monty Python's film The Meaning of Life ends with this: "It's nothing very special, really. Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."

Quote from Don

In modern Western culture, this is what happiness means for most people: a fizzy, effervescent quality that many people see as inherently short-lived. "Are you happy?" means, it seems to me, to most people to convey a bubbly, giddy feeling

I disagree (not what I generally mean – even without much reflection). And I disagree that there is (or can be) some non-contextual definition of “happiness” that can be applied except in the most abstract of cases. The same for “pleasure” – really no less problematic than “happiness.”

I think the search for some philosophical, context-free precision in such language will always fail – except in the narrow hallways of academia. In this, I continue to follow Wittgenstein’s insights on “ordinary language.”

With that said, “happiness” and “well-being” (as opposed to “ill-being”) are not – to my mind – unrelated. And, as has been discussed many times, that embraces the mental as well as (and maybe even more so than) the physical – e.g., Epicurus on his deathbed.

And, in Epicurean philosophy, “happiness” (and well-being, for that matter) is related to pleasure – the pleasurable/pleasant life. As opposed to, say, Stoic virtue.

Don , You and I have disagreed on this before. I have thought of eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” I continue to do so, as I still think they are related. A disagreement among friends : and one that itself may depend on context.

Oh -- and kudos on the Monty Python reference!

_____________________

I have not addressed “meaning.” Another broadly-defined term. And, to my mind, far more fraught than “happiness” – which is something that I feel.

Quote from Cassius

living being

LOL Don't get me started on "living being," but that's a topic for another thread.

@ Cassius : With regard to the gods, I agree (but there remains the idealist-versus-realist question…). With regard to pleasure=absence of pain, that formula is somewhat dependent on the context of Epicurean philosophy (in which there is no “neutral” state) – much, perhaps, as pathe in Stoicism needs to be understood, formulaically, as something other than eupathe.

But – on his deathbed, Epicurus was clearly in pain. He was able to find compensating pleasure (and happiness) elsewhere. That is part of the power of the philosophy.

__________________________

In that context , I think we stop trying for non-contextual understandings generally. A famous (infamous?) Wittgenstein quote on terminology: "Don't look for the meaning; look for the use."

Just a note on personal “context”: Epicurean philosophy offers – to me – well-prescribed guardrails against my innate Cyrenaic instincts, and a cogent, practical countervailing philosophy vis-a-vis my Kantian/Stoic upbringing/programming. A late discovery on both counts. Everything else is secondary (though clearly intellectually interesting – and therefore a source of pleasure ).

Quote from Pacatus

Don , You and I have disagreed on this before. I have thought of eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” I continue to do so, as I still think they are related. A disagreement among friends : and one that itself may depend on context.

Maybe disagreement is a little strong

I had to go back and see where we discussed this previously (Nothing dies on the internet ) and found one of our threads:

Post

RE: Fundamental Issues In Hedonism

[…]

Whilst I agree about the semantic difficulties with the word “happy/happiness,” I think that eudaimonia cannot be a strictly objective state – such that, say, you might claim that Pacatus is clearly in a state of eudaimonia/well-being, even though Pacatus might not be aware of that at all. So, I think there has to be a subjective element – such that I feel that state of well-being, which is a feeling of pleasure/pleasantness. And, semantic difficulties aside, I know when I feel happy, just…

Pacatus

December 11, 2023 at 6:02 PM

So, I do agree with you that everything is contextual. I do think it is nigh impossible to look at someone and say "Well there goes a happy person!" Without having access to their inner life, we can't objectively say if someone's happy or not... or experiencing well-being, for that matter. Feelings and emotions are, by definition, subjective to the individual.

And I would agree that the Venn diagrams of "happiness" (writ large) and "well-being" intersect. I'm still not quite ready to completely embrace an expansive "definition" of happiness, but depending on how we're defining it or - maybe better - using it, I can accept talking about happiness as a sense of well-being which both equate to feeling pleasure about your life and the direction it's headed.

And, just to be clear, we're talking about a 2,300 year old philosophy originally taught in a language other than English which had its own semantic issues... evidenced by the fact that the people of Epicurus' and Philodemus' time argued with them about the Epicureans' use of the word ἡδονή (hedone) to encompass the fulll spectrum of what Epicurus saw as "pleasure."

Quote from Don

Maybe disagreement is a little strong