April 1, 2018
The Happiness Illusion Paradox
Do you feel happy right now? Let’s assume that you do. What if I told you that you’re wrong? What if I told you that you only think that you’re happy? Maybe you would then change your mind; or maybe, you wouldn’t. Defining happiness has been an elusive activity since ancient times. For Aristotle, for example, happiness was more of an activity and less of a state of mind. Today let’s take a look at an interesting aspect of happiness, which is subjectivity. Let’s talk about the happiness illusion paradox.
By happiness illusion, I refer to the hypothesis my questions above posed: what if you only think that you’re happy while you actually aren’t. The happiness illusion paradox exposes the fallacious notion that happiness is an objective state. In other words, the happiness illusion paradox underlines the fact that you cannot measure or detect happiness outside the experiencer. If you think you’re happy, then by definition you’re happy.
Subjective Experience: I See Red
We can all agree that these words are written in red. But let me ask you this: Are you sure that what you see and what I see are one the same thing? How can you know whether what you have learned to call “red” isn’t actually what every other person on the planet calls “blue” – see what I did there? 🙂
Welcome to the wonderful world of subjective experience. You might have heard the term “qualia” somewhere – it refers to this thing precisely. If interested, you can read more about it here. The connection between subjective experience and the happiness illusion paradox lies in the fact that happiness is invariably connected with experiencing. In other words, a subject – an experiencer – is required for “happiness” to exist.
A Dentist’s Take on Subjective Experience
I was at the dentist’s once, undergoing a filling procedure. At some point I said “ow, it hurts”. To which the dentist replied: “no, it doesn’t”. I still remember that funny exchange. What made it funny – and pertinent to our discussion on the happiness illusion paradox – was that the dentist questioned my subjective experience of pain, having no grounds to do so.
In other words, since we assume I do not have a propensity for lying about being in pain, and since being at the dentist’s does contain the possibility of being in pain, the reasonable thing to assume would be that I’m telling the truth. If, therefore, I believe that I am in pain, this automatically means that I am in pain. Having the subjective experience is the only way for it to exist.
Happiness Illusion Paradox: a Twist in the Plot
So far so good. We’ve established that, as the experiencer, you are the only one that’s qualified to report on your happiness. If you say that you’re happy, that means that you’re happy, isn’t that what we’ve argued so far? Let me ask you this, however: Who is “you” in this context?
This might sound like a nonsensical question. At the very least, it might sound like a question outside the scope of today’s article. However, there is a crucial element that makes it pertinent: the innately self-conflicting nature of self.
You have thoughts, you have desires, and you have wishes. Some of them are conscious, some are subconscious, and some are unconscious. Perhaps you do things you don’t really want to, but that you have to.
All these accumulate to create cracks on the foundation of the experiencer as a reliable reporter of the subjective experience. In simpler words, a part of you might feel happy while another part of you does not. Which one is “right”? Is there even meaning in this contemplation?
One Comment
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
Some theories spread worldwide and across history (psychoanalysis, Buddhism, Sufism, some mystic branches of Judaism, etc.) do question the very notion of a self – not only its reliability as a reporter of whatever, but also its very existence. To avoid extending myself, I will recall verses by Nagarjuna: