|
Literature |
InPursuitOfHappynessIn Pursuit of HappynessPublished: 2008 Jan 1 When I look at religion (or metaphysical philosophy), there seems certain approaches to the meaning of life. Are you an existentialist who believe that the meaning of life is a choice that we must make, i.e. we must create a meaning for ourselves? Or a monotheistic believer in God (or other Creator) who believes that an external force is responsible for our existence? Or are you a nihilist who believe that there is no meaning, that meanings are mere illusions? Or are you a scientist, and believe that our purpose in life is really due to our behavioral genetic disposition and quantum probabilities (at worst, saying our purpose in life is governed by randomly moving particles)? Or perhaps a combination thereof? I will leave this philosophical exercise for another person. But it seems that religion provides a measure of relief for people from the burden to prove the worth of their existence every single day, as existentialists must do. In some ways they are fortunate, as they are able spend their time maintaining other aspects of their lives, while people like myself engage in philosophical exercises, most of which are probably fruitless. The whole impetus for my writing these articles probably comes from my existentialist tendencies; I always ponder what my life is worth and why I need to exist. Unfortunately, it worries many people who love me. Since I do not want to burden them unnecessarily, I have to find my purpose as an existentialist in the current state of the world. The idea of God or science governing my purpose does not make me happy. This is something I have to simply accept. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, all people are entitled to the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Why not simply happiness, instead of the pursuit of happiness? Our intelligent framers knew something about the nature of happiness. When we have everything we could possibly need, in a material sense, and our safety assured, we should be happy. Why is it that teen pop idols such as Spears, Lohan, and Duff, who by all means are wealthy and independent, seem to engage in self-damaging activities? Material wealth is not the sole ingredient for happiness, it seems. Or why should President Bush be President at all when his family has amassed enormous wealth? Looking back at Maslow's hierarchy, it might be esteem issues, i.e. even though these people have their basic needs met, there seems to be an intrinsic imperative to achieve the more abstract notions of contentness, that is, self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and respect given to and received by others. Going along with the analysis on economics, achievement is the most relevant term. Achievement occurs only when there is an obstacle to overcome. So even if you have material wealth and the sense of belonging, there is a need to achieve, hence, there is a need to struggle and accomplish. But, how much struggling do human beings really want to do? Often times we wish to push off work onto someone else, and other times we grow so bored, we feel a need for a challenge. So it seems that each person, for some reason or another, becomes attuned to a particular challenge. Some people might feel the need to be a healer. Others an explorer. And still others a type of architect. An often-used tool to determine these personality traits is the Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator (see http://similarminds.com/jung/enfp.html). It is not a perfectly reliable tool, but it does point out a possibility that people are more keen to certain things than others. If there is some validity to the Meyer-Briggs indicator, the U.S. population distribution is as follows, together with the general profession associated with each personality type. ISTJ 11.6% Inspector The implications are interesting, in a sense that, is it possible to construct a social structure that reflects the ratio proportions of these personality types? Corporations, government, associations, are all social institutions. Often times we hear the need for a strong leader, or a brilliant researcher, or whatever the case. But is it possible to construct a social institution that reflects more closely to the personality distribution of the population? How does this distribution vary over time? Such a social institution would give everyone a chance to make a contribution and feel needed. I suspect that the reason why human beings want to push work off onto others is because it is something that does not interest them. Personally, I am a philosopher type (obviously!), so I disdain cleaning up my room, or doing menial tasks like cooking food. Of course this makes me a hopeless human being at times. But if I could pursue an intellectual career without having to worry about money, i.e. having the constant burden to prove to others that it is in their best interest to keep me alive, I would be most happy. Many of my friends do not want to be rich; if they have sufficient material wealth, their needs move into developing their profession, wanting to settle down and have a family, take care of their loved ones, etc. So the types of responsibilities we accept are ones that our personality are attuned to. There is no scientific basis for this, since cognitive psychology is a relatively new field to begin with. But this is my intuition speaking. In summary, happiness must encompass self-esteem, a sense of achievement. This achievement probably works out best according to the person's preference towards a certain profession. Whereas Adam Smith created a theory based on mutual interest in reciprocity, I propose that we go further and integrate notions of individual personality types. In other words, allow people to pursue an endeavor to which they are suited, rather than placing burden on everyone to prove that their lives are worth keeping. We all have food. But to navigate the post-industrial world of abstract needs such as love, confidence, achievement, etc., a new social-economic infrastructure is needed. Previous: Substantiating My Existence |