Is Happiness a Meaningless Pursuit?

Pt. 1

I have recently finished the book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. In the book, the author equips the reader with a number of tools that they can employ to achieve “tranquility”. He shows the reader how they can use negative visualization, the trichotomy of control, the internalization of goals, psychological fatalism and other tactics to achieve emotional and psychological tranquility. I was eager to put these tactics to the test.

I engaged in negative visualization, the internalization of my goals and psychological fatalism to great success. I found myself to be happier, more content, and more grateful for my privileges. “Great!!!” I thought. I had done it. I now have the key to minimizing my suffering. “Now what?” I asked myself. It wasn’t very stoic of me; But really, now what?!

I know I know, to want is to suffer, to lust is to denigrate, to control is to disappoint, yada yada. But now what? Really, It’s a good question!! Is tranquility really the end goal? Does the stoic sage know the meaning of life and if they do, is it really to mitigate one’s own suffering? To want for nothing? To neglect what one cannot control? To let the world be? Is the goal of life to be happy?

Matthieu Ricard might answer yes.  Born in France in 1946, he initially pursued a career in molecular genetics, earning a PhD from the Pasteur Institute in 1972. However, he abandoned this path to dedicate his life to Tibetan Buddhism. He was later subjected to a brain scan that suggested inordinately high levels of happiness and low levels of negative emotion. He was dubbed “happiest man in the world”. An interesting story, but all I see is a man who spent decades forsaking the external world so that he can find peace.

On paper, it seemed to me that these pursuits are rationally sound. You don’t have the genetics you want? It’s okay, you can’t control that. You don’t have as much money as you want? It’s okay, money is an empty pursuit. You and your wife aren’t having sex? It’s okay, sex is just the friction between sexual organs. There are wars and famine that you could have a hand in opposing? It’s okay, you can’t control others. Your mom dies? You shouldn’t mourn outside what you can’t control because she wouldn’t want you to be sad and it helps nobody. You want more in life? To want is to suffer. Every practice outside of negative visualization just felt wrong. I pride myself on intellectual honesty, I champion rationale, and these are nothing if not rational statements; but my feelings told me a different story. A more human story.

As much as I might try to convince myself that I am rational, I am, first and foremost, human; and I am defined by my condition. I realized that it felt wrong, not because these tenants are irrational, but because they are antithetical to my humanity. Do I really want to limit my suffering? That which breaths life into me? Should I suffocate my struggles and wants until I am wantless, delighted, forever happy? No. My Sisyphean struggle is my value. Sisyphus does not retire. He does not settle for the bottom of the mountain. What a story it would be if he said “well, I can’t control the boulder, my efforts are moot and I shall rest at the bottom of the mountain for all eternity”. BOOORING…Useless. Meaningless.

Here are the questions at hand: Should you engage in a battle for what you believe to be your highest good, or strive to achieve perfect internal tranquility? Are they dichotomous? Is there value in Stoic practices? If so, where do we draw the line between useful stoicism and limiting stoicism? Is the pursuit of happiness meaningful? What is our condition?