Happiness Should Be A Verb


A new “happiness” is needed. The goal many pursue now ignores useful old wisdom and the logic of our biology. A verb capturing the necessary recurring effort would improve on a noun describing a desired static state.

Many now simply equate happiness with maximizing pleasure. But even the ancient hedonists took pains to distinguish pleasure from happiness, and the different types of the former that contributed to, or obstructed, the latter.

Enlightenment thinkers typically believed that knowledge by overcoming ignorance would help us “achieve happiness” (our natural goal). Sadly key Enlightenment ideas increased ignorance by demolishing useful distinctions, notably Bentham equated happiness with summable pleasures.

Bentham’s sums still confuse many psychologists, e.g. Kahneman says it’s “logical to describe…life… as a series of moments, each with a value” of positive or negative feeling, and to evaluate experiences by summing “the values for its moments.” He complains that our brains are illogical in not working that way. Surely it’s futile (and illogical) to wish our brains were different? Shouldn’t our reasoning (and goals) fit how our biology works?

“Positive psychologists” like Csíkszentmihályi are less confused, noting we don’t “understand… happiness… any better than Aristotle.” Csíkszentmihályi’s studies show “an active state of flow” provides “optimal experience.” Flow is a skilled activity that requires sufficient concentration to lose consciousness of self and time. Such autotelic (done for their own sake) activities are common in sports, music and the arts, but rare when we’re passive. Similarly, Seligman distinguishes easy pleasures from effortful “satisfactions” (longer-lasting rewards of “flow”).

This emphasis on effort and skill logically fits our biology better than Bentham and Kahneman’s mathematics of momentary pleasure. Our survival has long depended on second-nature skills. Yeats wonderfully said “all skill is joyful” (such “skill-joy”=adaptive). Aristotle said happiness was an activity not a state, and required exercising key virtues (meaning life skills).

Nouns like “happiness” and “well-being” are too static. Verbs reflecting the required repeated activity are wiser. Sadly the verb “happies” (from Shakespeare’s sonnets) is obsolete.

"Well-doing" is better suited than "well-being" or "being happy." And flourishing is something we do not that we passively be.

Frankel said “happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue.” However difficult to pursue, effective happiness can be harvested. By skilled activity, we can be flourishing.

Illustration by Julia SuitsThe New Yorker Cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions.

Related Articles

Why Japan's hikikomori isolate themselves from others for years

These modern-day hermits can sometimes spend decades without ever leaving their apartments.

700,000 Japanese people are thought to be hikikomori, modern-day hermits who never leave their apartments (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images).
Mind & Brain
  • A hikikomori is a type of person in Japan who locks themselves away in their bedrooms, sometimes for years.
  • This is a relatively new phenomenon in Japan, likely due to rigid social customs and high expectations for academic and business success.
  • Many believe hikikomori to be a result of how Japan interprets and handles mental health issues.
Keep reading Show less

Scientists discover what caused the worst mass extinction ever

How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.

Credit: Ron Miller
Surprising Science

While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.

Keep reading Show less

Why we're so self-critical of ourselves after meeting someone new

A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.

New acquaintances probably like you more than you think. (Photo by Simone Joyner/Getty Images)
Surprising Science

We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.

Keep reading Show less