This past week has seemed to follow Murphy's Law at every turn. However, the series of unfortunate events that had befallen myself as well as my friends began to be overshadowed by happier occurrences a few days ago, prompting me to step back and consider the week as a whole. While yes, the week was, in a word, shitty, there were also some bright moments that made it all feel okay. It was these moments that I tried to focus on–the silver linings of an otherwise cloudy week.

While thinking about these hopeful aspects, I was reminded of a paper I wrote for my humanities class last year, concerning two variations of how to achieve true happiness. The interpretations come from Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and the Dalai Lama's "The Art of Happiness". I thought I would share excerpts of the paper with you, and encourage you to remember to always look for happiness even in the gloomiest of times.

Achieving Happiness

Aristotle and the Dalai Lama interpret the idea of true human happiness in a similar fashion, but the Dalai Lama’s idea is easier for the average person to attain. While they agree that true happiness is not simply about an individual’s personal material satisfaction, Aristotle, in his "Nicomachean Ethics", asserts that living virtuously is necessary to being happy and living the good life. In "The Art of Happiness", the Dalai Lama and co-author Howard Carter place emphasis on an individual’s state of mind having the power to determine their happiness. "Nicomachean Ethics" is more strictly structured and outlines a specific way of how to achieve the highest good (happiness), as opposed to the Dalai Lama and Carter, whose theory is more open to interpretation and primarily concerns how one’s mindset influences their happiness, thus making happiness more attainable.

In "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle contends that in order to be happy and live the good life, an individual must consciously perform virtuous actions and enjoy doing them, for happiness is the “activity of the soul in accord with virtue” (Aristotle 1098a18). However, Aristotle believes there are certain conditions that allow a person to be able to attain happiness. These “requirements” are not very flexible, and are sometimes determined by sheer chance. Thus, it is difficult to achieve what Aristotle complexly defines as true happiness.

To Aristotle, happiness is a sacred state of mind that can only be determined after one has lived a complete life. It is not possible to measure someone’s true happiness at one given moment; the whole life must be taken into account because life includes many reversals of fortune, and one must let those be completed before deciding if they have lived a good life. Therefore, an individual’s whole life should be dedicated to ensuring they are living the good life and will therefore be considered to have been “happy” during their lifetime.

True happiness becomes even more difficult to reach after taking into account the external goods it requires; an individual cannot perform virtuous actions without proper resources such as wealth, friends, and political power. Aristotle also contends that an individual cannot be happy if they are deprived of certain external factors, including good birth, good children, and beauty, which are factors that cannot be controlled but are subject to fate. He claims: “For we do not altogether have the character of happiness if we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary, or childless; and we have it even less, presumably, if our children or friends are totally bad, or were good but have died” (Aristotle 1099b3-6). These conditions of happiness are out of an individual’s power to control, thus making true happiness a concept that also must depend on luck and fate as well as one’s own meticulous actions.

The Dalai Lama’s and Aristotle’s theories of happiness both recognize that external sources do have the ability to affect one’s happiness. The Dalai Lama explains, “although it is possible to achieve happiness, happiness is not a simple thing. There are many levels” (Cutler 24). Acting in accordance with traditional Buddhist ideals, which outline the four factors of happiness as wealth, worldly satisfaction, spirituality, and enlightenment, the Dalai Lama states that good health, wealth and material goods, and friendship are necessary for everyday (worldly) happiness. However, he elaborates that the right mental attitude is essential for an individual to fully utilize the factors “towards the goal of enjoying a happy and fulfilled life”, thus making the idea of true happiness more accessible to the general public because it is within their ability to control their own mindset. (Cutler 24).

According to the Dalai Lama, “happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than by external events” (Cutler 20). Success or favorable events give a “temporary feeling of elation”, much like a tragic event triggers a period of sadness, but eventually the overall level of happiness will return to a certain magnitude (Cutler 21). This certain magnitude is what the Dalai Lama calls an individual’s “characteristic baseline level of happiness” they will ultimately return to despite external conditions (Cutler 22). Some researchers argue that this level is genetically determined, but acknowledge that it is still possible to enhance one’s feelings of happiness because one’s outlook largely determines moment-to-moment happiness.

The Dalai Lama presents the theory that happiness depends on how an individual perceives their situation, which gives the individual the power to determine whether they achieve true happiness. Many people perceive their situation by using comparisons, whether they are personal comparisons or comparisons between themselves and others. One way for people to measure their happiness is based on contrasting their current success to where they were in the past. Modern culture often focuses on striving for better or more and has become commercialized, thus causing individuals to assess/evaluate their happiness according to how much they have lately gained or acquired. People also compare themselves to others in order to gauge their own happiness. The most common version of this method is using other people’s success to justify one’s own unhappiness or dissatisfaction. However, a more positive perception is to make oneself feel better by comparing oneself to those less fortunate; this method enhances one’s life satisfaction because they then will perceive themselves as being happier.

An important component of this positive perception is for an individual to appreciate what they do have. Cutler describes watching an interview with Christopher Reeves following the accident that left him paralyzed from the neck down, and how Reeves was able to find happiness after adjusting his attitude and shifting his perspective concerning his unfortunate circumstances. During the interview, Reeves recounted how he suffered a period of utter despair after his accident, but soon found he was considering himself to be a “lucky guy” (Cutler 30). He recognized how thankful he was for his family and for the advanced medical treatment he received that saved his life. He stated: “I realized that the only way to go through life is to look at your assets, to see what you can still do; in my case, fortunately I didn’t have a brain injury, so I still have a mind to use” (Cutler 30). He was able to manipulate his perception in order to attain happiness. By simply altering his outlook on life as opposed to dwelling on the negative aspects, he found he was much more content with where he was. Reeves is a prime example of how an individual’s mental outlook is essential to true happiness, and therefore how the Dalai Lama’s idea of happiness can be achieved by anyone, regardless of the circumstances of their lives. True happiness is a very attainable condition, if only one puts in the effort to change their mindset and work towards the goal of positively perceiving their situation at any given time.