Philosophy blends into Science

[Rob the Obscure]

Health Care Advisory Board
Print | Forward to a Friend | Save in Library | Table of Contents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happiness may not be all it's cut out to be, study finds


03/18/2011


Working too hard to obtain an experience of pleasure or positive feelings—or simply put, to be happy—can backfire, according to study in Health Psychology.

For the study, University of Wisconsin (UW) researchers studied 7,000 individuals participating in the National Institute on Aging's Mid-Life in the U.S. National Study of Americans. They assessed participants' "eudaimonic well-being," a concept created by philosopher Aristotle that can be attained by fulfilling personal potential, and compared it against hedonistic pleasures like a fun evening out on the town. Participants, for example, might obtain eudaimonic well-being by raising children, going to medical school and volunteering—activities that may not provide much hedonic happiness but do help obtain a sense of fulfillment.

There also may be a clinical benefit to feeling fulfilled. Researchers found that people with a low education level but a high eudaimonic well-being had less interleukin-6—a marker associated with cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis—than people with lower eudaimonic well-being, regardless of hedonic well-being.

A separate study of the same subjects found that people with greater purpose were less likely to be overwhelmed by living and mobility functions, such as managing money and housekeeping. Over five years, those people were less likely to die by as much as 57%. Meanwhile, although hedonist and eudaimonic well-being are not mutually exclusive, people who primarily seek hedonistic pleasure are often less happy than those who seek eudaimonic pleasure.

While psychologists say there is nothing wrong with seeking happiness, there is such thing as trying too hard too obtain it. According to the UW study's lead author, fixating on happiness "in itself can become a psychological burden" (Wang, Wall Street Journal, 3/15).

[CK]

Hi Robert

Thanks for sharing this tidbit. You have interesting timing. Last night I kept re-reading a passage in J.S. Mill by Dale E. Miller. In which he is trying to explain Mill's proof of Utility and definitions of happiness. Sometimes I wish authors would be straightforward and not twist my mind in circles.

Tonight, I will rest happily having chosen the euaimonic well-being of family time and stifled the impulse for hedonistic drinking at the bar :)

[Rob the Obscure]

@CK....haha! best of luck.

[CK]

Patrice: so Robert's article seems to be saying that trying to force lady luck is bad for our health?

[Rob the Obscure]

I think there are two primary points in the article. First, concerning the difference between fulfillment and well-being (eudamonia), and happiness as pleasure (hedonism).

Second, that there appears to be scientific evidence that well-being and fulfillment are much better for you in terms of overall health than hedonistic happiness. This is because increased mortality risk and cardiovascular disease appear to be inversely related to the amount of fulfillment and well-being one experiences. Moreover, the intense pursuit of happiness can actually become a burden due to the stress caused by the lack of lasting gratification.

I would point out that this insight has been taught as a central tenet of Buddhism since the 6th century BCE, in the sense that "attachment" and "desire" are seen as the root cause of suffering.

[Mark]

Philosophy used to be "Natural science"...

[Henry]

For sure, philosophy and science used to be partners and symbiotic. Aristotle believed in observation and the real world, though some of his observations showed a remarkable lack of observing. I can think of plenty of scientists or mathematicians who philosophized. Pascal, Russell, and even Darwin (you can say his theory of evolution changed the whole mindset of civilisation).

[Henry]

Notice is use "z" or "s", since I can do that as a Canajun, in words like civilise and philosophize.

[Henry]

Tho I will never say "tomahto"!

[Henry]

Rob the Obscure wrote: "Health Care Advisory Board
Print | Forward to a Friend | Save in Library | Table of Contents
We should just put the "pleasure principle" in the right framework. Happiness doesn't come from a constant life of indulgence, but through achieving positive and moderate goals. Not everyone can be rich and famous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happiness may not b..."

[Henry]

Rob the Obscure wrote: "I think there are two primary points in the article. First, concerning the difference between fulfillment and well-being (eudamonia), and happiness as pleasure (hedonism).

Second, that there appe..."

Buddhism works very well for people that are naturally introverted or non-social but if everyone were a monk or nun, and never have children, how would society advance? I know, I know, progress leaves a lot to be desired, but technology has done a lot to improve life too. It might be a good idea for China and India, though, to reduce their populations, chuckle.

[Henry]

Patrice wrote: "I've always had a problem with the translation of eudaimonia as "happiness". They aren't the same thing, as the article points out. Eu=good daimon=demon or spirit?
Peace of mind? Contentment? A..."

Actually, "geluk" and "gluck" are D. and G. for happiness, but "geluk" can also mean serendipity or just plain chance. "Hap" used to mean good luck. Maybe we need a new word that captures the essence of "earned"
happiness/contentment.