Boorish Pessimism

Since being invited by Sunni to post in this wonderful blog, it's been my plan to explore the importance of eudaimonia (an Aristotelian concept, best defined as human flourishing, or happiness) in the life of liberty. I was therefore quite surprised to read a contrarian and shockingly boorish response (entitled A Few Thoughts on Happiness) to one of Sunni's recent blog entries...


The person who wrote the piece (someone known as "kd") opens by stating that "As a known and avowed pessimist you should question my credentials, knowledge, and objectivity in discussing happiness." This person then proceeds to callously speculate as to whether or not Sunni's present romantic relationship is doomed to failure and concludes (based on Sunni's statements concerning her happiness in past relationships, and kd's own inane and irrelevant speculations concerning how Sunni's former significant others might have felt in those relationships) that it is. Reading this dreck, I couldn't help being reminded of the scene in Swift's novel where Gulliver extinguishes a fire that has broken out in the bedchamber of the Lilliputian Empress by pissing on it. Given the zeal with which he rushes to piss on personal statements written to express the joy and gratitude found in the fire of a newly-realized romantic relationship, we can certainly question kd's motives, if nothing else.

While the Kallikaks will unfortunately be always among us, kd's rant and beliefs concerning happiness do provide a useful basis upon which to compare and contrast the Aristotelian conception of happiness, or eudaimonia (which is essentially my reason for writing this; Sunni certainly doesn't need me to defend her personal life).

Kd's statement that Sunni's happiness will probably be fleeting (and contingent upon the length and success of her new relationship) is at odds with Aristotle's conception of happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness is something that can only be truly measured at the end of one's life, based upon the degree that one has succeeded in realizing one's full potential. In Book 1, Chapter 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle in his attempt to define happiness tells us:

"But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy."

Happiness viewed in this fashion lifts us above our everyday ups and downs and gives us a much broader perspective than that which is presented in kd's essay. Some of the greatest minds in history have written extensively upon the subject of happiness and most of it is available for free online; it is certainly a better use of one's time (and certainly more virtuous) to study the subject along these lines than to engage in fruitless, inane and uncouth speculation over the personal lives of others. Aristotle thoroughly covers what he believes to be a complete definition of happiness (in much greater detail than I can or am inclined to present here) in chapters 7 through 11 of the Nicomachean Ethics, and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone interested.

Kd then goes on to critque a comment on Sunni's blog entry made by Michael Jarrell, stating:

"What is happiness? Isn't happiness a contrast and absence of something that isn't pleasant?

If you are losing your freedoms and liberties is this happiness or is this a contrast - something that isn't pleasant?

Happiness has value, but doesn't anger also have value? Doesn't life have ups and downs, or should we expect all ups? What would that do to the value of happiness?

If happiness is the contrast and absence of something that isn't pleasant wouldn't anger be the opposite, a contrast and absence of something that is pleasant? Don't both have value? Can't anger be part of the journey to happiness? Has anger never brought happiness?"

In response, I of course return to the Nicomachean Ethics, which considers happiness to be the ultimate virtue, an end in itself, and also the end of every other value. Kd is correct in stating that anger is a value and that anger can be part of the journey to happiness. In fact, the ultimate end of anger (as well as every other value) is necessarily happiness.

Unfortunately, for the sake of making this point, Kd completely mischaracterized Jarrell's statement, which was as follows:

"Where's the happiness? The Joie De Vie? Must we allow it to be hammered from us by events which are beyond our control? Or must we work all the harder to create genuine happiness and pull from these events that which will place another brick in our own foundations? The latter is my choice. Happiness is preferable at all times, despite the work it takes to achieve true and lasting happiness. It's also necessary for us to be happy to produce the results we wish. This must apply doubly to those of us looking for freedom and liberty. How satisfying will it be if we achieved those goals riding on depression, anger and sadness as our primary steeds? That would make for a miserable journey, I think. Somewhere on that journey we must seek out, find and embrace happiness as our method, rather than the "Dark Side". It has to be preferable to depression and anger."

Jarrell clearly and correctly affirms that since happiness is the ultimate and primary value, anger and sadness etc. should not be our "primary steeds".

It thus seems to me that kd is operating more from the need to discredit others than he is from pessimism, and seeing less of that will make us all a whole lot happier...