Happiness Depends Upon Ourselves, Essay Example

Aristotle’s definition “happiness depends upon ourselves” is, on the one hand, precise, and, on the other hand, highly ambiguous. Aristotle namely locates happiness in a concept of the individual. Accordingly, any account of happiness must ultimately take individual happiness as its measure. However, at the same time, if happiness is only accounted for on an individual level, the diversity of individual opinions on what happiness is means that we have no concrete definition of the concept. In this regard, it seems that the concept of individual as the foundational stone with which to evaluate happiness is lacking. Namely, we, as human beings, are not merely individuals, separated from the world in an introverted manner, but always involved in relationships with others. It is these relationships to others which yield happiness.

The definition of happiness in terms of relationships seems accurate on an intuitive level. We have familial relationships, we have positive relationships with friends as well as negative relationships with enemies. We have loving and romantic relationships. There are also relationships to animals, which can be as meaningful as any human relationship. To the extent that these relationships give us happiness and meaning in our lives, it would seem that happiness cannot be measured in terms of individuality, but the exact opposite: in a concept of relationship. From my own experience, I know that some of the most happiest moments of my life were happy because they involved others. For example, the feeling of being in love and being loved in return is arguably the most powerful and happy experience one can have. Of course, this experience is entirely dependent upon another. Certainly, I, as an individual, can love someone else. But if this love is not returned, this produces the exact opposite of happiness: the pain of unrequited love.

This is why approaches to happiness such as contentment, as proposed by Pam Reynolds, seem false. This concept urges us to think of happiness as being satisfied with what is around us. In essence, the argument is that it is difficult to achieve happiness. Therefore, we should not search to hard for happiness, but rather merely be content with what is around us, because in no way is our happiness guaranteed. This seems to be the argument of a thoroughly capitalist, consumerist culture where happiness should be as available to everyone as a carton of milk or other some such banality. But the accessibility of happiness should not be confused with happiness. If there are times when we are heartbroken, when we are sad, this is because we on an intuitive level understand what happiness means, even though it is not accessible to us.

The accessibility of happiness seems to be why so many accounts of happiness in the modern age are related to the acquisition of material goods. The constant bombardment of advertising in a consumerist and capitalist culture seeks to tell us that happiness is easily accessible: all one has to do is purchase the correct product and the objective is achieved. As Halvorson notes, concepts such as hedonic adaptation prove such accounts entirely false. How good something makes us feel ultimately fails to satisfy us. Therefore, the product that promises us happiness will, in the end, not quench the desire for happiness.

In this sense, happiness can be fleeting. It is not something guaranteed to us, simply because it is not an individual concept, it is not something that is entirely dependent up. Yet neither is happiness guaranteed to us. This is because happiness depends on our relationships to others. It is something, in the end, that is beyond our control. But this does not devalue it, but rather makes it even more precious. What this underscores is that the accessibility of happiness should not be conflated with happiness itself.