I have heard this well meaning phrase time and time again when parents are talking about their children or a loved one. Its a nice sentiment, but is it something that the kids themselves should strive for? This article articulated better than I could, that the "pursuit of happiness" may be a double edged sword...

www.theatlantic.com/health/arc...g-happy/266805/
...
As he saw in the camps, those who found meaning even in the most horrendous circumstances were far more resilient to suffering than those who did not. "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing," Frankl wrote in Man's Search for Meaning, "the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

Frankl worked as a therapist in the camps, and in his book, he gives the example of two suicidal inmates he encountered there. Like many others in the camps, these two men were hopeless and thought that there was nothing more to expect from life, nothing to live for. "In both cases," Frankl writes, "it was a question of getting them to realize that life was still expecting something from them; something in the future was expected of them." For one man, it was his young child, who was then living in a foreign country. For the other, a scientist, it was a series of books that he needed to finish.

...

Now, over twenty years later, the book's ethos -- its emphasis on meaning, the value of suffering, and responsibility to something greater than the self -- seems to be at odds with our culture, which is more interested in the pursuit of individual happiness than in the search for meaning. "To the European," Frankl wrote, "it is a characteristic of the American culture that, again and again, one is commanded and ordered to 'be happy.' But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to 'be happy.'"

...

"Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided," the authors write.



The article has a lot more to it, and its worth the read. I also ended up reading Frankl's book, "Man's Search for Meaning" and it really made an impression on me. I would highly recommend it to anyone who can find the time. And for those who have questions about why a good God would allow pain and suffering (although its not a question he explicitly answers), it provided much in the way of personal illumination.

So what do you think? Is the pursuit of happiness a worthy goal unto itself?

i agree with much of the article's premise, but so long as "pursuit of happiness" is defined, not as "pursuit of instant/short term gratification", but as something more like "pursuit of a life of meaning"..i am at the life phase where funerals are much more common than weddings..and i always ponder whether, at my own service, those that know me well would say that "i left the world better than it would have been without me"..trying to ensure the answer to that is "yes" has become much more important to me.

always interested in the question of "why a good God would allow horrible things to happen?"..to me, the validity of the question rests on how one perceives "free will" and how it relates to our own vision of God..i have never believed in an "activist" God that swoops in to save the unfortunate or pious..i believe that God made a covenant with man that makes us responsible for living our lives as closely as we can to the example of Jesus' life..or for that matter, living as close to the lives of the prophets of most historical religions..God never promised, nor intended, lives free of pain and suffering..free will would be meaningless, were that the case..our responsibility is to make choices and decisions, without God's direct intervention, and that is what determines the course of afterlife..

my concept of the afterlife bears little resemblance to the most popular conceptions of heaven, but it is identical in that we determine its course.

btw, the atlantic is the only magazine, other than national geographic, that i read every issue cover-to-cover..always thought-provoking.

The "pursuit" of happiness makes happiness seem like a destination or a reward or something. Happiness is being thankful for what you have and content with what you have. If your definition of happiness is an idea of what happiness should be, you'll never be happy. Quenching want only leads to more want. Chasing want will never end.

And as far as the how does a good God let bad things happen, I think the answer to that question can't be understood by us lowly men. I just had to smack my one year old for pulling his sister's hair. He looked at me in utter disbelief like "how could you?" He'll understand one day, but not as a 1 year old. And I don't mean that we're being punished, that's not my point. Similarly my wife watches in disbelief as I let the same one year old climb on top of the table. My belief is, if I protect him from every danger he'll never learn. Let him fall and let him learn. A "boo boo" seems so horrible to a 1 year old and a 3 year old. In the big scheme of things it is nothing. So if you believe in the whole bible thing and God, Earthly suffering, no matter how severe, is insignificant compared to an eternal life in paradise, if that is what you believe happens, right?

That's just how I look at it.

Some great comments by Jack and JR. My favorite one that I often forget was what you wrote JR.


"Happiness is being thankful for what you have and content with what you have. If your definition of happiness is an idea of what happiness should be, you'll never be happy. Quenching want only leads to more want. Chasing want will never end."

Appreciate the feedback. As far as the comment about the reality of pain and suffering and how that conflicts with the idea of an omnipotent and good God, I agree with Lake that its nothing we will really be able to fully understand.

One thing is clear though in reading Frankl. He details his time in a Nazi concentration camp, and what is interesting is that despite all the pain and suffering, he never wavered in his belief in the importance of the spiritual life nor did he embrace the idea that life is just a bunch of random, meaningless experiences. If someone can experience what has to be one of the most dehumanizing, faith shaking experiences ever, and still hold on to a belief in a higher spiritual purpose, then the idea that the injustice committed against someone else negates a good God rings hollow to me. If the person who experiences the worst injustice can still believe in a good God, then on what grounds can I claim that the injustice in this world proves that God does not care about or love humanity.

Maybe there is no God and he just believed in something that doesn't exist, but it did help carry him through.

DHoss83 wrote: Appreciate the feedback. As far as the comment about the reality of pain and suffering and how that conflicts with the idea of an omnipotent and good God, I agree with Lake that its nothing we will really be able to fully understand.

One thing is clear though in reading Frankl. He details his time in a Nazi concentration camp, and what is interesting is that despite all the pain and suffering, he never wavered in his belief in the importance of the spiritual life nor did he embrace the idea that life is just a bunch of random, meaningless experiences. If someone can experience what has to be one of the most dehumanizing, faith shaking experiences ever, and still hold on to a belief in a higher spiritual purpose, then the idea that the injustice committed against someone else negates a good God rings hollow to me. If the person who experiences the worst injustice can still believe in a good God, then on what grounds can I claim that the injustice in this world proves that God does not care about or love humanity.

One thing about humans, and Kareem hit on it, we have an uncanny ability to adapt and survive. I am not sure if that means there is no God or if it means there is a God.

---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

Maybe there is no God and he just believed in something that doesn't exist, but it did help carry him through.

---------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right. In which case, his survival and experience was meaningless. And this conversation is equally meaningless. A world without a spiritual dimension is the world of the nihilist... a domain devoid of meaning and purpose.

Maybe this is it and there is no heaven.  Be happy for now and find meaning in now.  I don't believe in religion and "God" and I see meaning.  If there is a God and heaven or what not it doesn't change anything for me as far as how I view life now and meaning. 

"Happiness is being thankful for what you have and content with what you have. If your definition of happiness is an idea of what happiness should be, you'll never be happy. Quenching want only leads to more want. Chasing want will never end."

DHoss83 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

Maybe there is no God and he just believed in something that doesn't exist, but it did help carry him through.

---------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right. In which case, his survival and experience was meaningless. And this conversation is equally meaningless. A world without a spiritual dimension is the world of the nihilist... a domain devoid of meaning and purpose.

I don't believe everything is meaningless without god or a "spirtual dimension", otherwise I would walk around taking everything I wanted without regard to laws or others rights, feelings, etc.

Just because there may not be a god doesnt mean there isn't right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------
--- DHoss83 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

Maybe there is no God and he just believed in something that doesn't exist, but it did help carry him through.

---------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right. In which case, his survival and experience was meaningless. And this conversation is equally meaningless. A world without a spiritual dimension is the world of the nihilist... a domain devoid of meaning and purpose.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

Maybe this is it and there is no heaven.  Be happy for now and find meaning in now.  I don't believe in religion and "God" and I see meaning.  If there is a God and heaven or what not it doesn't change anything for me as far as how I view life now and meaning. 

"Happiness is being thankful for what you have and content with what you have. If your definition of happiness is an idea of what happiness should be, you'll never be happy. Quenching want only leads to more want. Chasing want will never end."

---------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right. So from your perspective does mankind have a purpose?

---------------------------------------------
--- mcoleman4 wrote:

I don't believe everything is meaningless without god or a "spirtual dimension", otherwise I would walk around taking everything I wanted without regard to laws or others rights, feelings, etc.

Just because there may not be a god doesnt mean there isn't right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------

How do you define right and wrong?

I am happy as hell being a grumpy old ******* tyrant.

I think some people do have a purpose.  It varies.  You make your purpose.  For me it's my family, friends, watching Clemson, and my pooch.    Some people have loftier goals and maybe they find their meaning in helping people or doing some noble things.   I don't think I have some special meaning in the scheme of the world, but to my family, friends, and pooch I have meaning.  

DHoss83 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

Maybe this is it and there is no heaven.  Be happy for now and find meaning in now.  I don't believe in religion and "God" and I see meaning.  If there is a God and heaven or what not it doesn't change anything for me as far as how I view life now and meaning. 

"Happiness is being thankful for what you have and content with what you have. If your definition of happiness is an idea of what happiness should be, you'll never be happy. Quenching want only leads to more want. Chasing want will never end."

---------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right. So from your perspective does mankind have a purpose?

You didn't ask me, but I just go with the golden rule.  I try to empathize.  Being able to empathize helps define right or wrong.  That's why sociopaths don't see right and wrong.

DHoss83 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- mcoleman4 wrote:

I don't believe everything is meaningless without god or a "spirtual dimension", otherwise I would walk around taking everything I wanted without regard to laws or others rights, feelings, etc.

Just because there may not be a god doesnt mean there isn't right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------

How do you define right and wrong?

---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

I think some people do have a purpose.  It varies.  You make your purpose.  For me it's my family, friends, watching Clemson, and my pooch.    Some people have loftier goals and maybe they find their meaning in helping people or doing some noble things.   I don't think I have some special meaning in the scheme of the world, but to my family, friends, and pooch I have meaning.  
<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>DHoss83 wrote:</strong>
---------------------------------------------

It sounds like you are saying people may perceive or find a purpose, but in reality there is no real objective purpose for humanity or people specifically. Am I reading that right?

One comment I want to add about the book... Frankl doesn't really talk about God explicitly. He alludes to a higher purpose and the spiritual life, but he is not making a case for God.

Here is an interview where they touch on the subject...
www.firstthings.com/article/20...an-interview-18

What distinguishes logotherapy from other schools of psychology is the humble recognition of an objective order that simply is and moral facts about the universe that are beyond our power to escape, modify, or reinvent. Frankl himself warned in The Doctor and the Soul against a strutting “nothing-but-ism” that declares our spiritual longings are nothing but instinctual drives and God nothing but a creation of the id. Without a Creator, I asked, wouldn’t any notion of “spirit” collapse back into instinct and logotherapy fall apart?

Not quite, he answered, but in any case his own calling was to heal the soul, not save it. “I do not allow myself to confess personally whether I’m religious or not. I’m writing as a psychologist, I’m writing as a psychiatrist, I’m writing as a man of the medical faculty. . . . And that made the message more powerful because if you were identifiably religious, immediately people would say, ‘Oh well, he’s that religious psychologist. Take the book away!’”

”You see,” he added, “I don’t shy away, I don’t feel debased or humiliated if someone suspects that I’m a religious person for myself. . . . If you call ‘religious’ a man who believes in what I call a Supermeaning, a meaning so comprehensive that you can no longer grasp it, get hold of it in rational intellectual terminology, then one should feel free to call me religious, really. And actually, I have come to define religion as an expression, a manifestation, of not only man’s will to meaning, but of man’s longing for an ultimate meaning, that is to say a meaning that is so comprehensive that it is no longer comprehensible. . . But it becomes a matter of believing rather than thinking, of faith rather than intellect. The positing of a supermeaning that evades mere rational grasp is one of the main tenets of logotherapy, after all. And a religious person may identify Supermeaning as something paralleling a Superbeing, and this Superbeing we would call God.”

---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

You didn't ask me, but I just go with the golden rule.  I try to empathize.  Being able to empathize helps define right or wrong.  That's why sociopaths don't see right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------

I like your answer. But didn't the golden rule originate from religion... from a spiritual perspective?

DHoss

"It sounds like you are saying people may perceive or find a purpose, but in reality there is no real objective purpose for humanity or people specifically. Am I reading that right?"

I think we are part of nature and it seems everything has some purpose. What's the purpose of any plant/flower or a bee? What's the purpose of a Grizzly Bear? What's the pupose of any animal? If there were no humans on the planet how would that effect the world and nature? Would there be some sort of balance that would be messed up? I don't the answer to that, but that's kind of what I imagine humans purpose on the planet is.

Obviously thats a complicated answer that would require us to purchase and consume large quantities of beer to fully discuss.

In general we have chosen to live in a society with laws and rules...you dont have to agree with all of them...and you can attempt to have the ones you don't agree with changed...or you can ignore them and perhaps pay the consequences that society has agreed upon...

Its tough to explain, but I know when I havent treated someone "right" or have done something that is "wrong". Perhaps its as simple as the "golden rule" as Kareem suggested, but my sense is it's way more complicated than that.

Society gives us the basic guidelines of "right and wrong", but it's up to each individual to interpret what that means (within reason)in day to day life.

There are many factors that help people define their moral compass. Parents or other influential adults in their lives, being taught as you grow and learn, your environment and your lifes experiences are a few.





---------------------------------------------
--- DHoss83 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- mcoleman4 wrote:

I don't believe everything is meaningless without god or a "spirtual dimension", otherwise I would walk around taking everything I wanted without regard to laws or others rights, feelings, etc.

Just because there may not be a god doesnt mean there isn't right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------

How do you define right and wrong?

---------------------------------------------

Maybe it just originated from self preservation and we mixed into religion later.  I bet it came naturally to some people before organized religion was created. 

DHoss83 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- kareem3333 wrote:

You didn't ask me, but I just go with the golden rule.  I try to empathize.  Being able to empathize helps define right or wrong.  That's why sociopaths don't see right and wrong.

---------------------------------------------

I like your answer. But didn't the golden rule originate from religion... from a spiritual perspective?