More than happiness

LISTEN. Who could ask for anything more? Cards have now won eleven in a row. I want twelve. 

Stoics and Buddhists, according to our new author in Happiness today, want more. But more what? More life? More time? More equanimity? More acceptance? Just more, says Thor. "I just think that’s what being a New Yorker is all about, being hungry for more," says the star hurler with the high school education who is also "a  multidimensional human being with feelings and problems and goals outside of sports."

 More Than Happiness: Buddhist and Stoic Wisdom for a Sceptical Age is Antonina Macaro's contribution to the growing body of literature commending "mindfulness" and (in the blurbed words of secular Buddhist Stephen Batchelor) "the pragmatic and therapeutic dimensions of philosophy." 

Owen Flanagan is another secularist who finds natural wisdom in Buddhism. Robert Wright (Why Buddhism is True) too. “Ultimately, happiness comes down to choosing between the discomfort of becoming aware of your mental afflictions and the discomfort of being ruled by them.” Wright and Stoic resurrector Massimo Pigliucci agree that Buddhists and Stoics like Marcus Aurelius come to similar conclusions "from a different metaphysical starting point."

“Think, remind yourself every time do you have a problem, every time you have an issue with other people, remind yourself of the big picture. You think about the extent of time, think about the extent of space, and the part that you are within it, and you will see that, (a) your particular concerns are actually not that important, but also, (b) that you are connected to everything else and that therefore the rational thing to do for you as a human being is to try to do your best to improve society at large."

“The Four Noble Truths are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. They suggest a course of action to be followed rather than a set of dogmas to be believed. The four truths are prescriptions for behavior rather than descriptions of reality. The Buddha compares himself to a doctor who offers a course of therapeutic treatment to heal one’s ills. To embark on such a therapy is not designed to bring one any closer to ‘the Truth’ but to enable one’s life to flourish here and now, hopefully leaving a legacy that will continue to have beneficial repercussions after one’s death.” ― Stephen Batchelor, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist

Macaro declares herself neither Buddhist nor Stoic, favoring Aristotle and noting that Epicurus has yet to enjoy a resurgence of interest and attention akin to that lately visited on the Stoics. She notes as well the Stoic connection to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

Therapy is of coure the keyword, and the binding thread of most ancient philosophies. Relieving distress and improving the experienced quality of lives was pretty much the entire point. But that's not to say that happiness is the entire point. "Happiness is not everything." But it may be the thing most indicative of whether our therapeutics are working. 

Stoics are not Skeptics, but if there's a significant connection between Stoics and Buddhists it's natural to wonder about the connection between Buddhists and Skeptics too. Was Pyrrho influenced by Buddhists? Committing to firm beliefs about the nature of reality, for instance, seems to have been anathema to both traditions. Not to commit to beliefs, even provisionally and experimentally, is to travel without a map (or gps). It doesn't seem smart. It doesn't seem likely to work, if one of the points of a journey is to arrive at a destination. Or at least approach it. So: is happiness a destination, or a journey?

Well it's both, isn't it? So shouldn't we want more reliable maps, more accurate satellite positioning, more stable infrastructure of all kinds, smooth roads and clear skies and plenty of pleasant diversions along the way? And more charging stations for our more efficient and eco-friendly vehicular conveyances?

Lots of metaphors to unpack, then, on the road to less suffering and more happiness.  Will metaphysics help or hinder? Will god-talk? James said his religious act was to defend experience against "philosophy," and that in general the religious impulse for most of us is driven not by a yearning for that sort of transcendence. What do Buddhists and Stoics think about that?

And what do they think about Nabokov's "common sense" view of our predicament, our "cradle above the abyss," our "brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness"?  What do we?

I think Humbert-squared's creator was on to something uncommonly acknowledged, with those stark images. As was the Venerable Bede, which is why this was our wedding scroll:

“The truest vision of life I know is that bird in the Venerable Bede that flutters from the dark into a lighted hall, and after a while flutters out again into the dark...It is something--it can be everything--to have found a fellow bird with whom you can sit among the rafters while the drinking and boasting and reciting and fighting go on below; a fellow bird whom you can look after and find bugs and seeds for; one who will patch your bruises and straighten your ruffled feathers and mourn over your hurts when you accidentally fly into something you can't handle." --Wallace Stegner, The Spectator Bird

Contrary to the popular notion of cold dispassionate Stoics and monkish meditating Buddhists, then, we'll treasure human connection above all, if we truly seek a life of more happiness. We'll value community, we'll work on relationships, we'll want to leave a legacy. We'll care about what life is going to be like here, after we're gone.

And in the words of the late psycho-novelist Irvin Yalom, we'll learn to "temper the anguish of our finitude" in the face of life's brevity, fragility, and beauty. We'll realize the rainbow wisdom that "we are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones..."

We'll ride our winning streaks. Life brings suffering, of course, lots of it. But it also brings pleasure and joy. Happy people get this. And they want more.