What would happen if Plato wrote a book after he read Augustine? You'd get Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy. Written in the early 6th century AD, this book is an extended discussion between the author and the personification of Philosophy. It's Great--as in a Great Book.
It covers a lot of ground, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to reflect upon the host of themes and ideas contained in this rather short volume. But, one thing which really got me pondering: the nature of happiness.
1. Aristotle noted that the end to which all our actions are directed is to increase our happiness.
2. Evil seems to prosper in this world; people who engage in evil acts seem to attain the objects of their desire. Good people do not always prosper.
3. 1 and 2 together seems to imply that evil people are happier, and thus to attain our ultimate end, it would be best to be evil.
Boethius' solution:
Evil ends do not make one happier. Boethius makes a distinction between true happiness, which can only be attained through Good, and some sort of brutish sensation which people often mistake for happiness.
This raises the interesting problem: is it possible that I can feel happy, but not be happy? Is there a difference between feeling happy and being happy? If so, why is being happy more important or better than feeling happy?
Over the years in class discussions, I have raised the question: why shouldn't we all simply go into some sort of permanent drug-induced state, being happy for the rest of our lives, instead of struggling through life sober and miserable? (This is not an original question of course--both Homer (implicitly) and Augustine (explicitly) ask it.) Students frequently say that the drug induced state is "fake happiness." I always laugh and ask what is the difference between fake happiness and real happiness. No student has ever had an answer. I also don't have an answer. My students' instincts are surely correct--surely there is some difference between the state of feeling happy and the state of being happy, but how can that difference be explained?
The problem reverses--if it is possible to Feel Happy but not Be Happy, then it could also be possible to Be Happy but not Feel Happy. And if they are that different, which is better? If given the choice between Feeling happy but not Being happy for the rest of your life or Being happy but not Feeling happy for the rest of your life, which is the better choice?
At this point, cue Bobby McFerrin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the problem is not as difficult if you take Aristotle's happiness, eudaimonia, with the newer translations. Apparently a eudiamon life is not just happy, it is balanced, useful, and flourishing. It is also bound up with virtue: virtue is a necessary step towards eudaimonia. So, there is an obvious difference between drug induced happiness and eudiamonia: one is, by definition, good for the society.
ReplyDeleteThat is really interesting--it certainly changes the nature of what Aristotle was arguing. But, it makes me curious about Aristotle now. When he is translated as saying we all seek to attain happiness, I have no problem with that; it makes intuitive sense to me. But, how does he know that we all seek to attain a "balanced and useful" life? It may be good for others if that is my goal, but why should that be my ultimate goal?
ReplyDeleteHmmm...Feeling happy and being happy. What is the difference? One is purely a fleeting facade and one is deep and authentic. I think they are entirely separate things; and who in the world would pick feeling happy over being happy? Perhaps the same folks who would rather watch reality TV instead of live a reality life! Also, I've never had a martini, yet would choose every time truly experiencing a pacific sunset over the stirred perception that I'm in the mindset of a pacific sunset:)
ReplyDelete