Happiness, Philosophy and Science

Soul_jyot · #1 (**permalink**) 10-Oct-2011, 21:58 PM

Happiness, Philosophy and Science

By GARY GUTTING

The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news:

Philosophy was the origin of most scientific disciplines. Aristotle was in some sense an astronomer, a physicist, a biologist, a psychologist and a political scientist. As various philosophical subdiscplines found ways of treating their topics with full empirical rigor, they gradually separated themselves from philosophy, which increasingly became a purely armchair enterprise, working not from controlled experiments but from common-sense experiences and conceptual analysis.

In recent years, however, the sciences — in particular, psychology and the social sciences — have begun to return to their origin, combining data and hypotheses with conceptual and normative considerations that are essentially philosophical. An excellent example of this return is the new psychological science of happiness, represented, for example, by the fundamental work of Edward Diener.

The empirical basis of this discipline is a vast amount of data suggesting correlations (or lack thereof) between happiness and various genetic, social, economic, and personal factors. Some of the results are old news: wealth, beauty, and pleasure, for example, have little effect on happiness. But there are some surprises: serious illness typically does not make us much less happy, marriage in the long run is not a major source of either happiness or unhappiness.

The new research has both raised hopes and provoked skepticism. Psychologists such as Sonja Lyubomirsky have developed a new genre of self-help books, purporting to replace the intuitions and anecdotes of traditional advisors with scientific programs for making people happy. At the same time, there are serious methodological challenges, questioning, for example, the use of individuals’ self-reports of how happy they are and the effort to objectify and even quantify so subjective and elusive a quality as happiness.

But the most powerful challenge concerns the meaning and value of happiness. Researchers emphasize that when we ask people if they are happy the answers tell us nothing if we don’t know what our respondents mean by “happy.” One person might mean, “I’m not currently feeling any serious pain”; another, “My life is pretty horrible but I’m reconciled to it”; another, “I’m feeling a lot better than I did yesterday.” Happiness research requires a clear understanding of the possible meanings of the term. For example, most researchers distinguish between happiness as a psychological state (for example, feeling overall more pleasure than pain) and happiness as a positive evaluation of your life, even if it has involved more pain than pleasure. Above all, there is the fundamental question: In which sense, if any, is happiness a proper goal of a human life?

These issues inevitably lead to philosophical reflection. Empirical surveys can give us a list of the different ideas people have of happiness. But research has shown that when people achieve their ideas of happiness (marriage, children, wealth, fame), they often are still not happy. There’s no reason to think that the ideas of happiness we discover by empirical surveys are sufficiently well thought out to lead us to genuine happiness. For richer and more sensitive conceptions of happiness, we need to turn to philosophers, who, from Plato and Aristotle, through Hume and Mill, to Hegel and Nietzsche, have provided some of the deepest insight into the possible meanings of happiness.

Even if empirical investigation could discover the full range of possible conceptions of happiness, there would still remain the question of which conception we ought to try to achieve. Here we have a question of values that empirical inquiry alone is unable to decide without appeal to philosophical thinking.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/people-and-opinion/37193-happiness-philosophy-and-science.html

This is not to say that, as Plato thought, we can simply appeal to expert philosophical opinion to tells us how we ought to live. We all need to answer this question for ourselves. But if philosophy does not have the answers, it does provide tools we need to arrive at answers. If, for example, we are inclined to think that pleasure is the key to happiness, John Stuart Mill shows us how to distinguish between the more sensory and the more intellectual pleasures. Robert Nozick asks us to consider whether we would choose to attach ourselves to a device that would produce a constant state of intense pleasure, even if we never achieved anything in our lives other than experiencing this pleasure.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=37193

On another level, Immanuel Kant asks whether happiness should even be a goal of a good human life, which, he suggests, is rather directed toward choosing to do the right thing even if it destroys our happiness. Nietzsche and Sartre help us consider whether even morality itself is a worthy goal of human existence. These essential questions are not empirical.

Still, psychologists understandably want to address such questions, and their scientific data can make an important contribution to the discussion. But to the extent that psychology takes on questions about basic human values, it is taking on a humanistic dimension that needs to engage with philosophy and the other disciplines — history, art, literature, even theology — that are essential for grappling with the question of happiness. (For a good discussion of philosophical views of happiness and their connection to psychological work, see Dan Haybron’s Stanford Encyclopedia article.) Psychologists should recognize this and give up the pretension that empirical investigations alone can answer the big questions about happiness. Philosophers and other humanists, in turn, should be happy to welcome psychologists into their world.

source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...y-and-science/

Ambarsaria · #2 (**permalink**) 11-Oct-2011, 09:50 AM

Thank you Soul Jyot ji for bringing forth great articles in our forum.

Great contrasting gems in the following,

Quote:

But the most powerful challenge concerns the meaning and value of happiness. Researchers emphasize that when we ask people if they are happy the answers tell us nothing if we don’t know what our respondents mean by “happy.”

From our forum perspective perhaps suggest to people to define when theu ask questions like in the following thread,

(http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-t...ated-soul.html)
Same applies to defining the Kam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar which are less of recognizable display in an overt way in humans. Perhaps Krodh (anger) and Moh (attachment) being best of the five in terms of people's general understanding.

Quote:

On another level, Immanuel Kant asks whether happiness should even be a goal of a good human life, which, he suggests, is rather directed toward choosing to do the right thing even if it destroys our happiness.

This perhaps challenges the notion of "merging" which appears topically popular with some spners. Our Guru ji and Gurbani provides help for leading a practical life and some want to turn it upside down into a merging objective. At least that is what I have perceived. So merging as a goal to see at the end of the tunnel some kind of rapture or ecstasy is kind of foreign in my understanding of Sikhism and Gurbani.

Quote:

Nietzsche and Sartre help us consider whether even morality itself is a worthy goal of human existence. These essential questions are not empirical.

The great "Destruction of Five Thieves" is another objective held or promoted by some spners.

So Sinner ji what would you rather focus on, if there is a choice,

choosing to do the right thing
- This is what Sikhism does most in my understanding of the essence of Sikhism
chasing morals or eliminating thieves
- This is more idle time or parcharik like talk based on my experience. This naturally is competitive as you end up differentiating and if done to a sufficient degree appearing to be on a pedestal. You don't have a choice of the pedestal, it comes with this territory. Just on knowing such an egoistic outcome, how serious or what part of available life moments we should spend on it!

Just some personal reflections. Any comments or corrections always welcome.

Sat Sri Akal.

Seeker9 · #3 (**permalink**) 11-Oct-2011, 20:25 PM

Interesting article

As I was reading I thought of a motivational theory I have come across in my studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs

In the context of the article and happiness, I was looking at this theory in terms of different levels of human need and what would make people happy at each level

What is it that drives say people like Richard Branson to take hot air balloons across the Atlantic etc?

You could say he has reached the top of the Pyramid as described by Maslow, i.e he is so rich that all his physical needs are met and he is happily married with family etc and is now looking for something else in life to relieve the monotony of this everyday existence..
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=37193

Most people will probably ask the sort of "Is this all that I am, is there nothing more?" question at some stage in their life and will turn to philosophy and religion for an answer. Whether they get the answers they seek will impact on their happiness