PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS, PART V

By

Karl H. Puechl

October 22, 1989

Some of you may remember that in one of my earlier talks I extolled the virtues of a Fellowship relative to a Church because a Fellowship is not tied to a Minister; I made the comment that no matter how good a Minister is, it only takes about a half-dozen talks for him to present to a congregation all that he has to say. I'm now up to Part 5 of this series on Philosophical Underpinnings and, even though I am not a Minister, you can anticipate that I'm fast running out of ideas. Besides running out of new things to say, I have another problem since this series has dragged on over about a year and a half. Some of you were not here for the early talks and, even if you were, you've probably forgotten much of what I've said. That can be good or bad. It's good since I won't sound repetitious if I repeat myself; but it's bad in that I have to repeat myself in order to allow for the absences and forgetfulness.

One of the first things I said was that prehistoric man began to classify and discriminate as a result of his recognition of individuality, and that much later the Greeks were especially adept at classifying things. In order to do this and to study each classification in depth, they tended to draw boundaries that are largely artificial. Many of these boundaries are still considered to be sacrosanct by many individuals. You and I; them and us; heaven and hell; management and labor; freeman and slave; man and woman; the rich and the poor; etc., etc. However, perhaps with undue optimism, I further said that humanity is on the threshold of recognizing that these boundaries are artificial and that the more modern way of looking at things is to integrate rather than to differentiate; that is, to recognize and to stress the similarities rather than to emphasize the differences. This integrated view of the universe, and humanity and its interactions, is already having substantial impact on race relations, international relations, family relations, sexual relations, business relations, and perhaps most importantly and none to soon, has given us the science of ecology.

In a later talk, I asked the question, "Who am I?", and using this integration thesis came up with the answer that each of us is the totality of impressions he makes on others through the totality of his accomplishments and his acquired characteristics and possessions. In the talk-back, Bill Mayer pointed out that this really was not a new concept; John Donne had said it more succinctly with: "No man is an island unto himself." I agreed that the concept was not new but that my method of development from an integrating viewpoint and from a desire to achieve immortality may have added something to the potential more-general acceptance of the concept.

Now, in this talk, I will try to develop a definition of "happiness" from this integrated definition of "I"; however, I will first review the historical development of the concept of happiness.

The earliest description of an attempt to define happiness, that I have found, appears in Greek literature. Hedonism as expounded by Aristippus maintains that pleasure, pure and simple, is the essence of happiness. If one attains pleasure, he is happy. If pain enters upon the scene, he is unhappy. This concept of happiness is, to modern man with his knowledge of psychology, obviously naïve. Can immediate fulfillment of a desire lead to happiness? Such fulfillment can give pleasure, but certainly not happiness if the pleasure sensation is short-lived.

Epicurus tried to get out of this dilemma, but still remaining within the confines of hedonism, by noting that some pleasures, though they are good, should be avoided because later consequences may cause greater grievance than the pleasures themselves are worth. In short, all pleasures produce happiness, but if too much unhappiness is bound to result as an aftermath of a particular pleasure, avoid it. Probably, most married individuals mentally carry out this trade-off analysis when considering whether or not to be unfaithful; in some situations, it is a reasonable and responsible way of assessing possible actions. We see that Epicurianism can be a helpful guide, or it can be practiced as asceticism depending upon how any particular individual is willing to weight the consequences of the aftermath to pleasure.

Another difficulty with the hedonistic definition of happiness arises when one considers that a pleasurable act for one person may be entirely disgusting to another. Aristotle attempted to overcome this difficulty by stating that the pleasure must be pleasurable to the whole being, not just sensuous, and that the greatest pleasure and hence true happiness is derived from the highest human activity. Of course, Aristotle considered this to be activity associated with the mind.

Spinoza goes far beyond these basic ideas. He believed that happiness is not a state-of-being but is a side effect to virtuous living that allows one to realize a greater portion of his potential. The activities that broaden you, that increase your horizons, that give you power, will also give you joy and, perhaps, happiness. Incidentally, since ever I read any of his writings, I've been in love with Spinoza. Personally, I don't think that any philosopher who came later has added much to his concepts or their development.

Now let us try to develop a definition of happiness based upon the integrated definition of individuality. If we accept the postulate that your life is the totality of impressions you make on others through all your actions, accomplishments and acquired characteristics and possessions, then would your most basic drive not be the drive for life - - - for expansion of your life - - - and in this sense for immortality? By applying the simple Principle of Minimum Astonishment would we then not define happiness as the state-of-being that is a consequence of living an expansive life? Happiness is the state of well-being for the entire individual that accompanies the satisfaction of, or the spontaneous living with, the basic drive that impels us - - - the drive for life. Happiness results from a life directed towards expansion of our capabilities and increasing our acquired possessions so that we can more effectively leave on others an increasing number of more-and-more significant impressions. Under this definition, happiness is not a static condition, but is a state of being that can exist only through continued dynamic action. To achieve happiness, man must build: building friendships, a reputation, an institution, or amassing capital and material assets expands our lives. We are "at one with the universe" only when we interact with the universe, only when we direct our living towards increasing our sphere of influence. This definition of happiness is essentially identical to that given by Spinoza, but we have come upon it naturally through our integrated definition of life.

It is to be further noted that under this definition happiness can be achieved by anyone and that the specific mechanisms for achievement depend upon the individual situation. An infant achieves happiness by impressing his parents. In a most restricted environment, adults achieve happiness by impressing their children - - - which gives us the primary psychological reason why repressed adults want to have children - - - so they can impress them and thereby achieve a measure of happiness and/or immortality. In the case of an ultimate genius, an Albert Einstein achieves happiness by impressing the entire race.

For those of us who have limited mental capacity and limited capital, striving towards the purchase of a car that gives us greater mobility, broadens us. Purchase of many other items, especially those that allow us to more readily alter our environments or to impress others in some manner, similarly can lead to happiness. Just striving for money and power and the influence they can exert can bring some degree of happiness. While this is apparently a very materialistic picture, material possessions do expand us and are extensions of ourselves, and thereby striving for material possessions is, to a degree, a sound approach to happiness and need not be frowned upon. Especially, it is to be condoned, even encouraged, if the individual who has these materialistic objectives has few other means available to him for expanding his life. However, even for the not highly-endowed individual, striving towards accomplishment, excellence, and recognition in a limited field of endeavor can also bring happiness. In addition, as I sort of said before, having children, teaching them, influencing them and impressing them is a most natural outlet for satisfaction of the drive for life.

Each of us is unique and is in a unique situation, thereby each of us places different emphasis on the relative importance of the various means at his disposal for expanding his life. An inert object, a scene, a waterfall, a tree can only impress by being beautiful, hideous or different. (It is interesting that this is the manner chosen by many teenagers to impress their peers.) However, a human being with very little mental capacity can achieve happiness by striving for little more.

In the other extreme, an educated genius cannot be happy by striving only for material recognition. He may also strive for this, but in addition he is compelled to make a more lasting contribution to humanity - - - he is compelled to strive for immortality to the extent of his capability or he cannot become happy. A genius, or near-genius, therefore, is more apt to be unhappy than a person with much more limited ability since a genius has his sights set higher and has more choices at his disposal. His inability to make the broad impression, that he believes he is capable of making, often leads to alcoholism, or worse. A genius or near-genius who strives only for the significant long-range accomplishment can become extremely dejected if through constant trial and failure he realizes that little progress is being made. For a gifted individual, a safer route to happiness is to strive for the extension of life through many means at his disposal; as John Steinbeck advocated in one of his books, "proliferate in all directions". The short-range extensions, that also satisfy the average human being, can give expansivity to life and thereby sustenance and a degree of happiness while the longer-range more significant objectives are being pursued. To live happily, a genius has less need of material possessions or children, but these also can contribute significantly towards his well-being.

It is obvious that broadening one's life via many avenues makes one less dependent on each individual aspect. The loss of one's children as they grow up is a severe and catastrophic loss to an individual whose life is completely centered on impressing them; an individual who also directed his life to other broadening aspects, can accept the loss of his children with a healthy attitude because of ready compensations in other endeavors. Similarly, the loss of a husband or wife or parents can shake the very foundations of our being if they constitute a major

fraction of our total life as previously defined. We can love them just as dearly even when we are not completely dependent upon them as our only outlet for the drive for life. The same can be said for retirement. Those of us who were completely wrapped up in our jobs had a most difficult time accepting the sudden contraction of our lives; those who had developed many avenues for expansion of our lives, could readily accept the closing of one road to expansivity.

In discussing what makes us happy, we cannot neglect the happiness of others. If each of us is the totality of impressions he makes on others through his accomplishments and his acquired characteristics and possessions, each of us is not a clearly defined individual. My wife, children, parents, friends, employers and employees are a part of me, but I am also a part of them. My life will be the more expansive, the more I allow their lives to be free and expansive. The greater their influence, the greater will be the impressions they make on others and the more they will be expanding the impressions I have made on them. An artist cannot expand his life, cannot gain fame or happiness by allowing only his wife to observe his masterpiece and then not allowing her to have the freedom to interact with others. Only through such interaction can she be an instrument for the extension of his life. Freedom for ourselves and for others is a necessary ingredient for expansivity and happiness!

When freedom is so curtailed, when a society is so oppressive that the drive for life cannot be satisfied, social evolution or even revolution is inevitable. Man cannot and will not exist under conditions that severely constrict the development of his life. Violent revolution is to be commended when such is necessary to attain the freedom to live happily! Such revolution is to be commended in the home when teenagers rebel against overly protective parents; it is to be commended in industry when an employee quits his job for greater freedom and responsibility; it is to be commended nationally when restrictive dictatorships are overthrown. Throwing off the constraints that bind us to leading "little" lives is one of the highest forms of human endeavor. It is part of the evolutionary force that directs humanity towards cultural development. Social progress is always in the direction of removal of restraints; each of us must strive for the freedom to develop into the full being for which he is capable.

As I mentioned in a previous talk, the most effective tool used by restrainers of all varieties is fear. We do not rebel, because we fear our parents; we do not rebel, because we fear being out of work; we do not rebel, because we fear prison and death, and for orthodox believers, they do not rebel because they fear the supernatural. Fear is the most vicious and most effective deterrent to happiness! Without fear, life is not totally determined; without fear, we can alter our environment; without fear, we can lay the groundwork for happiness.

Although not germane to our philosophical development, we should devote some time to the consideration of pleasure, since this was the starting point that the Greek philosophers used in their attempts to define happiness. What are some pleasurable actions? Actions that satiate the individual body desires can be pleasurable. Eating a good meal is enjoyable, sleeping can be pleasant, satisfying sexual appetites can be ecstatic. These acts, though pleasurable, in themselves cannot produce happiness. Pleasure may also be derived from organization or routine and, seemingly contradictory to this, by pleasant surprises. Routine, when not exaggerated to boredom, tends to prevent tensions by minimizing the need for petty decision-making; on the other hand, pleasant

surprises relax tensions by interrupting mental stress. Pleasure can be derived from activity that prevents or relaxes tensions, which in a broad sense may also be classified as body-needs, but such activity generally is not directed towards attainment of happiness.

Pleasure is also experienced when one achieves a goal he has set for himself. Winning a game of poker, a game of chess, or a round of golf can be pleasurable. In a more productive vein, so can passing an exam, writing an article, cleaning out a messy closet or building an outdoor barbecue. So can solving a problem in technology, if one is so inclined, or solving a domestic problem that results in a closer family relationship. Pleaure can be derived from attainment of all kinds of goals, from any job well done, no matter whether the activity is productive or not. Generally, pleasure is experienced because of relaxation of tensions. Certainly, tensions are eased by performing well on your job even if it is routine, non-broadening labor; and tensions are relaxed by playing games or by completing a distasteful but necessary task that has been frequently postponed. For some of these listed activities, our lives are expanded and the derived pleasure may be said to be an adjunct to happiness. However, happiness does not come about because of one expansive act, rather happiness results from living to extend life.

From this discussion, we see that pleasure is indeed not closely related to happiness. Pleasure is derived primarily from activities that satisfy body-needs. However, since satisfaction of body-needs is necessary to both mental and physical health which are required for participation in more expansive activities, pleasure is a necessary adjunct to living happily. We now realize, however, that pleasure alone can never result in happiness. Hedonism took a necessary condition for happiness and expounded it as a necessary and sufficient condition, and many later philosophers, to a degree, constrained themselves within the bounds set by this misconception - - - and what has far greater consequences, a good fraction of humanity is still trying to derive happiness solely by heaping one pleasurable experience upon another.

Our definition of pleasure, that is, the sensation that results from activity that satisfies body-needs, also makes clear the situation that had mystified Aristotle. Not all bodies have identical needs. Pleasure is a sensation that can be derived only when there is desire for a particular activity - - - only when the body has need for such activity. Eating cannot produce pleasure unless preceded by appetite. If tensions do not exist, then carrying out a particular act can give no pleasure. Since we all have different bodies and different personalities, we do not all have the same desires and needs; therefore, we do not all derive pleasure from the same activities. Fulfilling only our particular desires with the associated relaxation of tensions is all the pleasure that is necessary for our happiness; in fact, we cannot derive pleasure from any other acts or from over-indulgence.

To sum up this diversion into the meaning of pleasure, pleasure is the sensation that results from satisfaction of our body needs and thereby is a necessary condition for happiness. Happiness, however, is much more than continuous pleasure. Happiness is the state-of-being that accompanies directed living, living directed towards expanding our acquired possessions and skills in such a way as to allow more forceful impression of others. We cannot achieve happiness through complacent, narrow living. The drive for life, life with the broadest definition, gives us our thirst for knowledge, our curiosity, our cultural evolution, and our dependence on others through our need for involvement and interaction.

Rather surprisingly, from an integrated view of individuality, we have derived not only a basis for self-delusion, vicarious immortality (which was discussed in one of the previous talks), but a philosophical position that can have major impact on our actions and perceptions; this merits some review and recapitulation.

From observation, we have postulated that each of us, one's life if you will, is the totality of impressions he makes on others through the totality of his accomplishments, actions and acquired characteristics and possessions.

From this postulate, we have made the most simple assumption, namely, that the primary drive is for life - - - for extension of life, as just defined, to the greatest possible degree consistent with one's individual limitations.

Happiness can then be defined as the state of well-being that comes about through living to fulfill this basic drive for life. Living to expand our life, "building" taken in its broadest context, produces happiness. Our actions, or external conditions, that constrain or contract our lives lead to frustration, resignation and ultimately death.

Fear is the greatest deterrent to happiness. Fear keeps us confined; prevents us from expanding our lives; in short, fear stifles living.

Pleasure is not to be confused with happiness. Pleasure is the sensation that is derived from satisfying body-needs, including relaxation of tensions. Pleasure, however, cannot be experienced if the particular activity is not desired. Over-indulgence therefore cannot produce happiness; it cannot even produce pleasure. Pleasure, however, is necessary to happiness since life-broadening activity can best be entered into when body-needs have been satisfied.

Our postulated definition of "I" is significantly broader than proposed by others. Samuel Butler at the turn of the century and Corliss Lamont during mid-century both defined "I" as the impressions that I make on others. We have broadened this concept somewhat by noting that all acquired characteristics and possessions are, in essence, no different from our normally-considered physical and mental attributes. Therefore, the impressions we make on others are determined not only by our bodies and minds but also by our accomplishments, our possessions, our families and our friends. In other words, the impressions we make on others are made by everyone and everything related to us that can impress. This is a significant extension of previous concepts since the totality of our possessions, using the word possessions in the broadest sense, must present a consistent picture of ourselves. Looking for inconsistencies might very well be useful for detecting sources of frustrations and neuroses.

The conclusion that the basic human drive is for the expansion of life follows naturally from our definition of life. Quite obviously, the basic drives, previously proposed by others, such as sexual domination, power, prestige, etc., are now shown to be different manifestations of the basic drive for life. Each of us places relatively more or less emphasis on these individual manifestations and a person's actions must be evaluated relative to his entire makeup, his own particular mix of emphases. A normal human being is not one who places, say the drive for power above all else, but one who, at a particular time in his life, places consistent degrees of emphasis on the various manifestations. With maturity the relative mix alters in every individual, and some generalizations which are not contradictory to presently accepted psychology can, of course, be made. We do not contradict Freud, Adler, Jung, and later theoreticians, rather we have synthesized their philosophies into a grander structure.

Living to satisfy the basic drive for life is our definition of happiness. Can there be a simpler definition! As we have pointed out, this definition is not inconsistent or even significantly different than that offered by Spinoza. Based on our integrated definition of life, however, the definition of happiness is much more specific. We can better judge the relative merits of two choices of action applicable to a particular situation. Can this philosophy not form a basis for ethical evaluation?

We have also found a niche for materialism and have shown that material acquisitions can expand life and thereby can form a basis for happiness. Materialism practiced even to the point of ostentation, can be considered acceptable, even healthy living, if other outlets are not available for the extension of life.

Our definition of life and happiness further allows us to more clearly define freedom. Increasing freedom reduces the fears that restrict us and opens wider the avenues available for broadening us. This can guide us in bringing up our children and can serve as a guide to national leaders for developing policy both at home and abroad. We must bring up fearless children who are not afraid to wander into the unknown, who are not afraid of taking risks directed at expansion of their lives. Our national and foreign policies must be directed not just towards improving standards of living and thereby allowing satisfaction of body -needs, but must also be directed towards giving each man full opportunity to make his life as broad as he desires, as broad as his capabilities will allow.

Perhaps, most importantly, the drive for expansion of our integrated lives can be readily extended so that we can naturally delude ourselves into believing that we are achieving immortality. What is more, a measure of immortality can be achieved with assurance and without fear. Living an "unvirtuous" life does not lead us into hell and damnation, it just gives us a smaller measure of vicarious immortality.

Some of you may remember that this entire philosophical development came about by recalling that prehistoric man began to classify and discriminate as a result of his recognition of individuality. One reason that I carried the development through in such great detail was to show that a small change in an assumption or premise can result in significant alteration of our perceptions. Humanity is on a threshold, at or near another acme of civilization, and it needs new perceptions in order to go forward without chaos. From our present vantage-point, it is not clear that we can move forward; in fact, many of us, Phil Simon and especially our children and grandchildren, believe that civilization is going down-hill. Personally, I am not that pessimistic. Man has always been able to develop new perceptions and to accept new delusions in order to move forward. I trust that humanity will continue to muddle through.