In the ordinary thinking of human beings, both questions seem to have simple, concrete and contextualized answers in their emotions, in their satisfactions, in the pleasures, in the desires, objectives, goals and successes achieved and/or in the rational logic that they may have at any given time. But, for the Philosophy it is not so simple, on the contrary it is a so complex and ambiguous subject that it contemplates opinions of diverse characteristics and in some cases antagonistic to each other.
Therefore, in the first place I have to mention Aristotle, who enunciated his ethical-political proposal of Happiness as supreme good, this being an end in himself; for which the "polis" is the place of free and equal citizens, virtuous and happy. In this sense, this approach is based on a behavior opposed to pleasure and dedicated to political action and contemplation. But, this proposal has been supported by some and rejected by other philosophical thoughts, to be contrasted with the theme of the pleasures, passions, desires, feelings and moods of people.
So much so that in second order, we have the vision of the Stoics and their ethical proposal to isolate themselves from the sensitive and earthly world, based on the "apatheia" (mental state of equanimity, free of emotional disturbances); to avoid emotional reactions and disturbances of the mind that must be controlled by reason; to be immersed in an "ataraxY" (absolute self-control), which leads to individual wellnesss by control of the will, to have resolution, courage, strength, clarity, devotion to duty, indifference to pleasure, to desires and feelings and impassivity before happiness/sadness and wealth/poverty.
For their part, Socrates and Seneca advised moderation and control of passions, emotions, desires and vices, without neglecting the world, by virtue of self-control; using reason to control, drive and appease those passions, desires, vices and feelings, understood as causing unhappiness and discomfort.
On the contrary Immanuel Kant, established that a moral thought can not be founded from the platform of Happiness, as this is an ambiguous concept without universal definition. In fact, he proposes an ethic of duty and the moral act based on goodwill; clarifying that it is impossible for the human being to act morally from feelings and love, since these are sensations and involuntary acts; therefore, it is not about being happy but about acting in accordance with Reason for duty and to make possible the culture based on law (prohibition) and civilization with social order (repression).
Apparently, Happiness is something abstract, ambiguous and almost utopian, that depends on the line of thought of each one; although Philosophically, Happiness is linked to the moral and ethical question, the customs, the pleasures, to speak, to do and to live well with our fellowmen, the satisfactions, the sensations, the state of mind and the reason. That is to say, the Philosopher is torn between a "Hedonist" proposal (ethics and good together with sensory and immediate pleasure) and another "Eudemonist" (the good and the divine, with justified ethics to act and achieve Happiness), for which Happiness is sought in pleasure or in the exercise of virtue, to merit paradise and the kingdom of heaven, thus justifying all the sacrifices made.
However, in modernity Philosophy raises its political theory of Happiness argued in Contractualism, Democracy, Liberalism, Civilism, Constitutionalism, Homeland, Legality, Society and Duties and Rights. That is to say, Happiness is understood based on the social pact to which the human being is subject; with the limiting laws that govern it, the rights and duties, the defense of private property and public, political, social and economic freedoms.
Although, returning to the thinking of most people, it is to reaffirm that they mistakenly place their happiness pigeonholed in the pleasures, desires, successes, satisfactions, emotions and moods; that is why they tend to carry a banal life full of sporadic and ephemeral enjoyments. In this area, several types of majority personalities are detailed: those whose aim is active political life, those who choose to live in a structurally basic way with low general reasoning and those whose aim is contemplation and virtues conjugated with pleasures, Emotions and satisfactions.
In this sense, the human majority tends to choose a clumsy animal existence almost in its entirety, justified in fashion and with the support of social media, which permeate their minds with misleading and behavioral messages on the basis that the powerful, rich and celebrities apparently lead a happy life with their luxuries and pleasures.
In denial of the above, I must clarify that as human beings when we are "really" happy, we tend to be profoundly rational, observant, prudent, self-controlled and reflective. Our happiness drives us to take the necessary time to measure the consequences of our words and actions and, therefore, decide accordingly. That is to say, a person is happy if before acting he or she learns to decide correctly and to choose the good or the best for his or her future (your present are a consequence of your decisions, words and acts carried out in the past, therefore your future will be a consequence of your decisions, words and present actions).
In this environment, it is reported that the Philosophical foundations of a happy person are the "logos" (reasoning on feeling, thinking, speaking, acting and omitting), the "ethos" (moral and ethical conscience of good) and the "habitus" (what is acquired and practiced, and customs), without ignoring the pleasures, desires, moods and emotions that can not be avoided.
In other words, in order to be happy, it is necessary to act well, morally and ethically well, taking into account the common good of all. Then, as a direct consequence Happiness is achieved by practicing good, moral, just, honorable, equitable and in many cases altruistic habits; because in wanting and acting on the common good, happiness comes naturally, with a courageous and virtuous attitude and spirit. On the contrary, it is very obvious that no one in his "sane judgment" wants to act badly, or become sunk in the vices, or prefer injustice, slavery, lack of control, violence, war, death, destruction, chaos and criminal anarchy.
I humbly consider that each one of us must independently value our own life to achieve our "real" happiness without external, direct, indirect, subliminal or mediated impositions; always looking for an acceptable midpoint of philosophical thought; that is, we must be understood that the human being who feels, thinks, speaks and acts rationally with control, caution, intelligence, prudence and honesty are happy; taking the best possible decisions, according to our rational nature that can avoid excesses in desires, passions, pleasures, vices, moods and the "traps" of feelings, to avoid future consequences that affect our happiness.
Objectively it is clarified that by acting in the manner previously foreseen, then Happiness can be based on the earthly pleasures achieved, the passions enjoyed, the desires, goals and objectives achieved, the successes obtained, the feelings and the love lived and our appreciated state of good spirit and health in general.
Source of All Images: https://giphy.com
