Happiness and the Desire Paradox
If you are able to satisfy your desires or can achieve what you want you are happy; this is one of the many and the simplest theories of happiness and seems almost acceptable to everyone.
However the attainment of happiness is not as simple as it seems in the light of above proposition. There are many other angles that add some twists. That is why despite the constant quest to live a happy life, people in today’s complicated world (or, we may say, in every age) have found happiness increasingly elusive. It is because just the pursuit or fulfillment of a desire can not a guarantee happiness, even more so if the desire itself is questionable in the first place as will be elucidated in the context of ancient philosophers views about happiness, including those of Socrates, Plato, and Buddha. However, we shall start with Gautama Buddha as his teachings are not only simpler and thus still popular but equally appreciated both in East and West.
According to a legend, once a man came to Buddha and said (or begged/shouted in desperation as he had exhausted from his life in spite of being rich and thus having all sorts of comforts):
“I want Happiness.”
Buddha is believed to have responded as follows:
“First remove “I” as it is “Ego” and then remove “Want” as it is a “desire.” What will be left will be “Happiness.”
Although some commentators are of the view that it is not canonical and thus a fake Buddha quote, even then it offers us some deep insights.
In other words, regardless of its authenticity, the quote seems very interesting as well as insightful, in a very Buddhist way, even if it is an invention, and not translated from an authentic Sanskrit or Chinese text, as an expert in Buddhism seems to have claimed. The message makes sense and seems deep enough to the extent that it being called fake doesn’t detract one bit from its relevance and profundity.
Buddha’s philosophy about the desire for happiness is also supported by a research according to which the pursuit of happiness may even lead to an opposing effect: the desire to be happy actually makes or can make you less happy. Or we can say that one can even become frustrated in case they fail to satisfy their desire by hook or by crook.
It sounds like a Catch-22, but this is what’s known as the happiness paradox. The more happiness you chase, the less you have. You may be wondering, why is this so? One answer is that it (achievement of happiness) can’t be a goal in itself. In other words if you strive for happiness by direct means (self seeking behaviour) you end up less happy than if you forget about happiness and focus on other (larger goals of, for instance, serving and sacrificing for humanity) things.
Another point of view is that feeling of (or the urge to satisfy) desire is tricky. On the one hand, desire generates passion and helps you create what you really aim or care about. In other words when your desire becomes your ambition (nearly everyone has an ambition that leads to define their aims in life), it drives you to perform better in life. On the other hand, if you obsess about something you want (irrespective of its desirability or value), your desire can become an attachment or even have an addictive quality that screams: “I have to have it now.” Although living without desire is unrealistic as there is apparently nothing wrong with wanting, but when we are too attached to our desires (and become self-centered), we risk becoming captive to them. An attachment to pleasure, for example, becomes an obstacle when it continually compels us to chase it, even when it may be unwise or unhealthy to do so.
However, in my view passion to create something or being ambitious about achieving a long term goal/objective can’t be called a desire in a simple sense. On the contrary ambition means having a determination/plan to achieve a particular goal or aim in the long term rather than wanting or longing for something without any determination. For Example, Mother Teresa also had an ambition to become a nun, but it can’t be called a desire for personal gratification. In reality, her goal was spreading fire of love amongst the poor, the sick, the dying and the little children.”
Regardless, there are also other dominant theories or postulations about the definition of happiness from antiquity to the early modern times or from Socrates to Sartre.
And as Timo Airaksinen ( Professor of Moral Philosophy in the Discipline of Social and Moral Philosophy at Helsinki University) points out there are, basically, six typical views of happiness:
A virtuous and only a virtuous person is happy, or happiness is virtuousness.
A person who enjoys life is happy, or happiness means maximal pleasure and avoidance of pain. This is hedonism.
A person who is calm and contented is happy, or happiness is peace of mind (ataraxia); it is also possible she enjoys the benefits of apatheia or freedom from passions.
A person is happy when she systematically gets what she wants, or happiness is fulfilled desire.
A happy person is, somehow, a complete person, or happiness is flourishing as self-realization, or “becoming what you are” in terms of one’s realized potential. This is eudaimonia.
A happy person enjoys a full range of social goods, such as loving family, prosperity, and overall appreciation and success in her social and political life, in addition to such natural goods as good health.
The idea at the top of the list is similar to that of Socrates, popularly known as “Socratic Paradox of Happiness” and also seems to validate or endorse the Buddha’s views about happiness conveyed through the controversial quote posted above.
Throughout the Socratic dialogue, Plato presents a variety of arguments concerning the relationship between “”Virtue” and “Happiness.” In simple words, Socratic Paradox says that a virtuous person is always happy, regardless of his circumstances. According to some other commentators, Socrates position here is that “virtue” and “happiness” are bound up with a proper conduct of one’s affairs that are guided by the certain kind of wisdom.
Thus Socrates, himself, is also perfectly happy in his prison cell although he is sentenced to death in spite of being innocent. But he is happy because he has not done anything wrong or immoral. He is happy because he is just as an unjust person can not be happy. Similarly, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Plato (also) maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. That is to say, happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues (aretê: ‘excellence’) are the requisite skills and dispositions needed to attain it.”
In short, according to Plato most moral people tend to be the happiest. He also identifies four “cardinal virtues” that are necessary to attain happiness of an individual as well as the whole society. And these are wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. Some other sources suggest that he identifies five virtues (wisdom, temperance, courage, justice and piety) that form a unity.
However, if we define happiness as “Hedonistic Pleasure” i.e things like “sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll etc., and which also means absence of pain and to crowd as much enjoyment as possible into each moment, then the insatiable hunger for all things pleasurable can ultimately result in misery rather than boosting your self-esteem and overall well-being. Although some critics disagree with the definition of hedonism based on a life of untamed appetites and instead prefer ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus articulation of hedonism as moderate pleasures and respect for others, but pursuit or desire of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence still remains the central idea.
Thus following platonic argument against such kind of approach to happiness seems valid:
To desire is like trying to fill up an empty slot in one’s soul but it proves to be a bottomless pit one cannot fill up; in other words, desire as lust presupposes that one necessarily lacks and misses something, which is painful. One is then prone to act against reason (Plato, Republic 440, and Kahn, 1987: 77).
In this context, Buddha’s prescription gets vindicated as desire or self-gratification (seeking insatiable pleasure of all sorts) stems from ego. Thus many of the great philosophical and religious systems such as Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism have all suggested desire be tamed or repressed. Immanuel Kant argued we could reach a stage of bliss if we overcame it. And in the words of Deepak Chopra, this is because the ego is unaware of its true nature of abundance and wholeness, so it always feels a sense of lack and acts to try to fill itself.
On the other hand, the higher Self (a person’s spiritual self as opposed to the physical body) by definition is fully awake to itself and feels no lack of any kind. Impulses of action that arise from the higher Self begin and end in abundance, joy, gratitude and fulfillment.
Moreover, instead of clinging to our desire, we must welcome or accept pain so that we continue moving toward our goals. Once we accept pain, we notice that our state of feeling moves from attachment (clinging energy) to non-attachment (flowing energy), a state in which we are free and open to all experiences.
Thus the secret of true happiness lies in giving rather than receiving. Many pundits are of the view that unselfish love brings its own reward. Although there is much happiness in receiving love, there is even greater happiness in giving or showing, love to others. A lot of studies Studies indicate that the very act of working for collective good or for community boosts your happiness, health, and sense of well-being. While focusing solely on achieving personal/individual gratification may cause you stress and anxiety — the opposite effect of what you’re looking for. This is also the essence of Henry David Thoreau’s quote:
What Henry David Thoreau is trying to convey is that when you focus on “your own self,” you can’t be happy, but when you focus those around you (your family, friends, under dogs who need your help) you will automatically become happy.
In nutshell, pleasure is not the same as happiness as it is has more to do with the individual and thus physical and external (as well as out of control factors) and thus selfish and painful rather than spiritual and internal (factors in our own control) and thus selfless. Thus opening our minds to see beyond our very own noses can brings us true happiness.
Kindly Support:
I am not eligible for “Medium Partner Program” and thus need support of kind and generous readers like you to keep writing meaningful stuff. To do so you just have to click the link below and buy me a coffee.
Thanks
Footnotes:
i) https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/a-man-said-to-the-buddha-i-want-happiness/
ii) https://powerofted.com/paradox-of-desire/
iii) https://brill.com/display/book/9789004410305/BP000011.xml
iv) History of Philosophy Quarterly
Vol. 4, No. 3, Plato and Aristotle Issue (Jul., 1987), pp. 251-264 (14 pages)
Published By: University of Illinois Press
v) https://www.tafterjournal.it/2017/05/15/desire-and-the-socratic-paradox-of-happiness/
