When we seek happiness, what exactly are we searching for? And when we wish happiness upon someone else, what is it that we truly desire for them?
Can happiness even be defined, or is it an illusion—an impossible desire to fulfil? Why, then, are there so many self-help books on the subject? What do they promise, and can those promises be attained? Is it possible to measure happiness? If so, how do ordinary people and scientists do that?
To answer these questions, I explored different definitions of happiness in my book, Happiness, Unhappiness, and Chance. The book is based on my PhD study in philosophy.
Happiness today is narrowly defined by some positive psychologists as a joyous state of mind or well-being.
The happiness sciences view it as something that can be calculated and quantified. They have developed a ‘Happiness Index’ and the World Happiness Report.
These essentially measure happiness as satisfaction, with criteria like gross domestic product per capita (wealth) and life expectancy (health) serving as key factors.
But happiness is also defined by our capitalist, consumer-driven society as a collection of aspirational products, brands, and lifestyles.
These consumerist definitions are often exaggerated by influencers on social media, but also through the manipulation of consumers by the algorithms behind the digital tools we use. Increasingly, this is compounded by artificial intelligence.
All these varying definitions create their own problems. In fact, they can lead to more unhappiness than happiness. Joy and pleasure are often short-lived and unsustainable; well-being can quickly be undermined by illness and fate; and pursuing certain brands, products, and lifestyles exposes us to the trap of the “hedonistic treadmill,” which causes one “to rapidly and inevitably adapt to good things by taking them for granted.”
Happiness, when reduced to a single, simple definition, fails to consider the complexity of being human, the societies we live in, and our fragile relationship with the environment. My book seeks a more inclusive and encompassing definition of happiness—one that is more than just joy, well-being, or the absence of pain; more than an ethical life or a by-product of consumption.
I wanted to find out if a better understanding of happiness can be formed and achieved, one that considers all cultures alongside factors like justice and care for our environment.
The consumerist trap
To explore the potential of such a philosophical understanding, we must first examine why current dominant definitions falter. Consumerism, with its “you-must-have-this-to-be-happy” approach, is now so forcefully embedded within digital platforms that it is worth questioning whether we can still envision or live for something beyond what our algorithmic ecologies present to us.
The rise of happiness science
As the power behind our contemporary global happiness culture, the happiness sciences proclaim that happiness is something one must work for and achieve. Happiness itself is becoming so all-consuming that it resembles a new religion. US historian Darrin McMahon describes the situation thus: “At the dawn of the modern age, God was happiness; happiness has since become our God.” Consequently, happiness becomes an exhausting and impossible task, which paradoxically makes one more unhappy. People may eventually abandon the pursuit, becoming cynical due to the pressure to be happy in a specific, prescribed way.
The religious perspective
Globally, the strongest power behind certain forms of happiness—especially those framed as “true and eternal”—is religion. Some religious traditions teach that true happiness can only be achieved in the afterlife, such as in heaven or nirvana. They proclaim that it is impossible to find true happiness in the here and now. This perspective suggests that this life cannot be fully affirmed because happiness is perpetually deferred. In effect, this approach gives up not only on the possibility of happiness but also on the potential for “true” goodness and beauty in daily life.
A philosophical alternative
As an alternative to these problematic understandings, I used the work of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur to guide my research. He argued that happiness should not—and could not—be defined as the overcoming of unhappiness, as such an attempt will always be futile. It denies unhappiness as part of the fundamental reality and fullness of life, leaving us with an impossible task. Happiness and unhappiness are always in relation to one another; the existence of one does not require the annihilation of the other.
The relationship between the two is situated within our fragile ability to work for happiness, while remaining aware that receiving it is not solely the result of hard work—it can also be a matter of chance. Unhappiness may manifest as unexpected tragedy. We should continue to contribute to our own and others’ happiness, but if we try to maintain total control, we will become exhausted. We must allow space for chance—both as luck and as tragedy—in our lives.
Why this matters
The ability to dream again about a different kind of happiness—one connected to our actual lives rather than a technological projection, and our genuine desires rather than those manipulated by consumerism—has become increasingly important. We require better definitions of happiness in a world where the term is constantly corrupted by the self-help industry, politicians, and algorithmic technologies.
I argue in my study that an affirmation of life allows for a happiness that can include and respond to both unhappiness and chance. We must not give up on life itself; otherwise, the very concept of happiness becomes irrelevant. (The Conversation)
