The Attainability of Happiness Can one attain happiness in this life? St. Thomas Aquinas is very opinionated on this subject. To know if one can attain happiness in this life, Aquinas first analyzes different possible sources of happiness to determine whether or not man’s happiness consists in these sources. Aquinas asks if any created good could consist of man’s happiness. St. Thomas says it could seem as if happiness consists of created goods because “man is made happy by that which lulls his natural desire”(1). Created goods satisfy us because they are what we crave, so when we attain them we could achieve happiness. Aquinas argues that while this is so, created goods cannot possibly be the source of man’s happiness. This is mainly due to the fact that created goods are “less than the goods of which he is capable, as of an object, and which is infinite. And the participated good which is in an angel, and in the whole universe, is a finite and restricted good” (2). What this means is that it does not make sense for man to solely derive his happiness from created goods because they are finite; there is only a set amount of these things in existence. Man would always have to worry about whatever good that is fueling his happiness from running out, because it is not eternal. For Aquinas, this means that our happiness cannot possibly consist of created goods because by definition, happiness is that state in which nothing is left to be desired. One is completely satisfied and at peace in a true state of happiness, yet with created goods one is always stressed and worried about them running out. Aquinas then goes on to question whether or not man’s happiness consists of honors. The argument that Aquinas goes against is that “It would seem that man's happiness consists in honors. For happiness or bliss is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9). But honor more than anything else seems to be that by which virtue is rewarded” (3). This seems as though it is logical, considering that being virtuous is an accomplishment. One usually takes pride and joy out of one’s accomplishments, so therefore it would make sense that one should attain some sort of happiness from honors which result from being virtuous. Aquinas would disagree. According to Aquinas, those that are virtuous do not behave the way they do in order to attain honor, or else their actions would not be virtuous. The true reward for the virtuous is happiness itself. When someone is honored, it is a sign that this person posses some quality of excellence for which they are being recognized. This does not work in the reverse; being honored does not make one excellent. This leads to the fact that man desires to be honored out of his desire for happiness. This is because if a man is honored, this usually means that he is happy because honor is recognition of excellence. A man being honored does not, however, cause his happiness, but is merely a sign that he is happy.
Aquinas concludes by saying that God must be the source of man’s happiness. For Aquinas this is obvious because “man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek” (4). All other worldly objects or ideas cannot satisfy man because they are not eternal. Only God is eternal, and everlasting, therefore only he can be the ultimate fountain of our happiness, because he is always there. I completely agree with Aquinas’ last argument about man’s happiness having to consist of the vision of the divine essence. I would compare this to the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament of the Bible, in which a man attempts to acquire happiness only through worldly means (10). The man fails miserably and life seems as though it is pointless and all is futile when life and happiness are not taken into view with consideration towards God. If a man places his happiness on his possessions, this is not an ultimate happiness. He will still suffer unhappiness if his goods are stolen, or damaged, or if he runs out of them. One does not have to worry about having a limited supply of God, for he is infinite and eternal. Freud takes a different position on this issue from Aquinas. He claims that “the program of becoming happy, which the pleasure principle imposes on us, cannot be fulfilled”, but he emphasizes that we must still strive to come as close as possible to attaining it to ensure a good quality of life. Freud looks at happiness in a very scientific sense, analyzing the psychology behind it and the chemical reactions occurring in the brain which are responsible for providing us with our happiness. He examines drugs which “directly cause us pleasurable sensations” by making us “incapable of receiving unpleasurable impulses” (5). He goes on to talk about how at certain times the brain could have a diminished or a heightened sense of receptivity towards happiness. Freud examines the people that try to attain happiness through love. He says that these people base their joy on giving and receiving love. This has a major weakness, which according to Freud, is why this cannot help us truly achieve happiness either. The weakness is that we are very vulnerable when we love people or objects due to the fact that we may lose these people or lose the love that they have for us, which would cause us a great amount of pain. Freud claims that “One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system” (6). He goes on to analyze those people who derive their source of happiness by completely detaching themselves from reality. There are also those who detach themselves only to a certain extent, but they live in a state of delusion and derive their happiness from constructions of their own imagination. For Freud, all religions fall under this category. For the most part, I disagree with Freud, but in a sense I do agree with him. I believe that he is wrong in saying that the religions of the world are simply delusions of mankind attempting to change their reality to fit their wishes. I also believe that he is wrong in saying that it is impossible to attain happiness in this life. However this is because I am operating under the premise that God exists, and therefore he is the source of ultimate happiness that leaves us completely satisfied without longing for anything else. I understand, on the other hand, how Freud could come to the conclusion that mankind cannot attain happiness if he believes that religion is a delusion. In this sense Freud agrees with Aquinas in that they both believe that all worldly things cannot bring us happiness. Aquinas believes that God brings us happiness, and since Freud does not believe in God, his conclusion differs from Aquinas’ final conclusion on whether or not man can attain happiness. I believe Freud is wrong about God, religion, and man’s ultimate ability to attain happiness, but I believe he is right in saying that all worldly things cannot provide us with happiness. Augustine has his own views on happiness as well. He claims that “the sort of human life that is termed happy, a life that enjoys virtue and other goods of soul and body without which virtue cannot exist; a life is called happier if it enjoys one or more of the goods that virtue can lack and still exist; and happiest if it enjoys all goods, so that it lacks not one of the goods either of soul or of body” (7). He goes on to say that virtue is not necessarily identical with full life, but only with a life that is conducted wisely. Augustine talks about how we have to fight against our inclination to sin. He says that we must ask for God’s help in order to help us resist these desires, but this internal war can cause a sense of happiness. When we don’t sin and we listen to God, this can bring about a sense of accomplishment which can cause happiness. I think that this argument makes a lot of sense because if we go back to Aquinas’s argument about how God is the ultimate source of man’s happiness, we understand the gravity of sinning. When we sin we are alienating ourselves away from God, away from our source of happiness. If we simply ask him for the strength to resist sinning, and we overcome our temptation, we would come closer to God instead of alienating ourselves, and thus become closer to our source of happiness. Adam Philips holds that happiness is simply “an impossible dream. Happiness is always a delusion” (8). He states that it is pointless to attempt to get rid of all forms of stress in your life, and that we should instead try to become more skilled at handling difficult situations in order to be able to attain some degree of contentment in your life. I disagree with Mr. Philips. While I understand the wisdom of knowing that you cannot get rid of stress completely from your life, I do not believe that this necessitates that happiness is a delusion. Stress is a good thing, if handled correctly and in right moderation. If you have no stress, then you do not care about anything, but if you have too much stress then you can become overwhelmed. I believe that happiness can be attained with stress in one’s life if it is balanced well. Speusippus, the nephew of Plato, believes that happiness can be attained in this life, but he has very different ideas about how one goes about attaining happiness. For him “the good ones aim at untroubledness” as the source of their happiness (9). He talks about how most men attempt to acquire happiness through means of material possessions, or other meaningless things, while the actual wise man attempts to gain happiness by merely being at peace and not being bothered by his surroundings. Speusippus denied hedonism, which claims that pleasure is the source of happiness. When he says that one should not be troubled by his surroundings, what is meant is not just his immediate surroundings, but if an unfortunate event happens to him, or if illness takes his body, for him to remain unbothered by it. I agree with his view that happiness can definitely be attained in this human life; that much should be obvious to most people. I disagree, however, on his way in which happiness is attained. I believe that God is the source of our happiness. If we do not permit ourselves to be bothered by our surroundings, then perhaps we will not suffer unhappiness, but we will also never experience the true happiness that one attains only through knowing God. I believe that happiness can be attained in this life, and it can only be attained through God. I believe that it is very flawed logic to think that happiness cannot be attained in this life. Plato’s nephew Speusippus agrees that happiness can be attained in this life, and yet this was a long time before the coming of Christ and the development of our relationship with and understanding of God. Even though he lived in this time period he still understood that happiness was possible, but due to his situation he did not understand how it was possible. Freud has to be incorrect because he bases his entire argument on religion’s being a delusion of mankind. The fact that God is real is undeniable, and I am surprised that someone as intelligent as Freud could not see that. Aquinas himself offers several proofs on the existence of God (11). Therefore if God must exist, Freud’s argument merely falls apart about how we cannot attain happiness in this life. The core of his message still makes sense if taken in a different context that worldly things do not cause enduring happiness, because only God can do that. Freud is correct in assuming that man’s ability to attain true happiness depends upon the existence of God. Since God does exist, it follows that man can attain happiness in this life.