In the introduction to this online course, “The Science of Happiness,” Professor Dacher Keltner briefly covers some philosophical ideas on happiness. I find it fascinating that scientific research on happiness only started to really flourish about 20 years ago, and Keltner himself mentions that the science on happiness is arriving late on this subject, while the philosophical writings of Confucianism, Buddhism, Lao Tzu, Aristotle, Epicureanism discussed the subject over 2500 years ago. Science or specifically I think psychology and sociology have since their inception focused more on neuroses and pathologies, criminality and other ills of society and within the individual. It’s only recently that science has taken up happiness as a legitimate field of study.
It’s also really interesting that despite the binary framework to present Eastern vs. Western philosophies, Keltner also seems to suggest in the introduction that recent research is perhaps seeing more value in philosophies of happiness, especially in Eastern philosophy. So for instance, Keltner summarizes that whereas Western views on happiness value independence, achievement, and self-gratification, Eastern views on happiness value relationships, connection, duty. And then the reading assignments, as I mention in the previous blog post, emphasize happiness “the hard way,” not quick, fleeting bursts of pleasure, but as an overarching sense of well-being, a life “well-lived” and meaningful as it relates to others, to communities, to something bigger than the self.
I don’t think Keltner really enforces or intends to enforce the binary differentiation between Eastern and Western, though. In fact he cites Uchida, Oishi, et al. as the researchers that present this differentiation. Also, when he was talking about Aristotle’s Nichomachean ethics, he points out that the “principle of moderation” means accepting all passions or emotions, like anger, but that we must cultivate them the proper way, in the right context. Anger at societal injustice would be a virtue that is part of a good, happy life for Aristotle. This still seems to me individualistic, but still I think Western virtue here can be connected to Eastern dignity. And then there’s also John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism in the 19th century, which is about one’s actions directed towards the greatest welfare of others–this clearly relates to Eastern, Buddhist and Taoist thinking.
I’m not very religious (I’m one of those who’d say I’m spiritual but not religious, as I hardly ever go to church), but I thought Christian thinking would also be mentioned in the intro to the course. I’m no expert, but isn’t Christ big on compassion and generosity? This also seems to relate to Eastern philosophy.
But what I found most interesting in the intro is this paradox from Lao Tzu, about how the meaningful life might not be something we can grasp with our rational mind, that one has to let it unfold, experience it, not so much think it consciously or rationally. Happiness might not be something that can be caught so rationally, so consciously, and vulnerability, being “tender and weak” may be the pathway to the “mysterious force of life,” to happiness. . .
I think Carl Jung may have been saying something similar with the idea of the collective unconscious. I’ve been listening to this podcast “This Jungian Life,” and the three Jungian analysts host the podcast would often point out that there’s something autonomous in our dreams. It sounds spiritual, though I don’t think they’ve ever called it that. I think they’d call it the “Self,” that is autonomous from or independent of our individual egos, but is bigger than ourselves, something like the collective unconscious.
This just makes me wonder how consciousness and control may be what has led Western thinking to focus on solving problems, neuroses and pathologies. Don’t get me wrong: consciousness is obviously important; without it I couldn’t have written this, albeit meandering, blog post. Yet perhaps the heart of the matter is in paying attention to the unconscious, to the darkness. . . After all, isn’t consciousness only one sliver of our existence, with the basis of our lives dependent on largely unconscious processes like circulation, respiration, digestion?
There’s a video clip of another professor, Barbara Fredrickson, who mentions that our bodies shed and produce new cells at a rate of 1% per day. Of course, certain cells like the ones in our bones and brains don’t turn over as fast as our skin cells, but the point that Fredrickson was trying to make is that we transform ourselves, and that perhaps this is why changing our ways and habits can take up to three to four months: we need to keep training and teaching ourselves as our cells regenerate, as old cells die off unable to take in new information. . .
As I’m currently not walking on the camino, it’s much harder to see everyday anew, much easier to fall into a monotonous grind. Conscious effort then is necessary to remember the camino and shed some light into my daily routine, but I’m also buoyed by the idea that unconscious processes like cell-regeneration and the darkness in our dreams play a role in letting meaning and happiness unfold.
Anyway, these are some of my reflections as I take the online course and relate it to the Camino de Santiago.
