“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
When Thomas Jefferson penned these words in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, he framed happiness not as a guaranteed state, but as a pursuit—an elusive goal tied to human life and freedom. Drawing from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689), Jefferson adapted Locke’s concept of natural rights—specifically “life, liberty, and property” as inalienable rights protected by government. Jefferson rephrased this as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” By including “the pursuit of Happiness” alongside Life and Liberty, he emphasized that fundamental role of government is not to ensure personal contentment, but to safeguard the freedoms necessary for each individual to define and seek their own path to fulfillment. This subtle shift broadened the philosophical scope, moving beyond material possessions to a more inclusive vision of personal flourishing, rooted in Enlightenment ideals.
Yet an enduring question remains: What does it mean to pursue happiness? Throughout history, philosophers have offered diverse perspectives, each contributing to our understanding of what constitutes a meaningful life.
For Aristotle (384–322 BCE), happiness—or eudaimonia—was not a fleeting emotion, but a state of flourishing achieved through a life of virtue and purpose. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he argued that happiness results from living in accordance with reason and cultivating virtues such as courage, justice, and wisdom. This lifelong endeavor involves balance and rational activity, making happiness an active process rather than a passive state.
In contrast to Aristotle’s virtue-based approach, Epicurus (341–270 BCE) equated happiness with pleasure (hedonē ), though his philosophy was far from indulgent hedonism. He advocated for a life of simple pleasures, minimal desires, and freedom from fear—particularly the fear of death. Relationships and intellectual contentment were central to his vision of a happy life, emphasizing moderation over excess.
Stoic philosophers—including Zeno of Citium, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius—viewed happiness as apatheia: inner tranquility achieved through virtue and acceptance of what cannot be controlled. Stoics taught that individuals should focus solely on thoughts and actions within their control, remaining indifferent to external circumstances like wealth or suffering. This approach leads to a resilient, contented state aligned with nature’s rational order.
The Buddha (5th–4th century BCE) saw happiness as liberation from dukkha (suffering). Through the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, he taught that overcoming desire and attachment leads to nirvana—a state of profound peace. Mindfulness, compassion, and ethical living are essential to this pursuit, emphasizing inner transformation over external gain.
Confucius (551–479 BCE) linked happiness to harmonious relationships and fulfilling social roles. By practicing ren (benevolence) and li (proper conduct), individuals contribute to personal and communal well-being. For Confucius, happiness is found in living virtuously within the context of family and society.
Rumi, the 13th-century Persian poet and Sufi mystic, believed that the meaning of life is to awaken the soul, remember its divine origin, and return to union with God—the ultimate source of love and truth. On happiness, Rumi emphasized that true joy comes not from external possessions or status, but from inner peace, self-awareness, and union with the Divine.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), one of the most influential figures in modern Western philosophy, rejected happiness as the foundation of morality. Instead, he emphasized duty guided by the categorical imperative—a universal principle of rational action that determines moral validity. While happiness may arise as a consequence of moral behavior, Kant argued it should not be the primary aim. For him, true moral worth lies in acting out of duty, even when such actions conflict with personal desires. In this view, genuine contentment comes not from pursuing pleasure, but from fulfilling one’s rational and moral obligations.
As a utilitarian, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) refined hedonism by distinguishing between higher (intellectual, moral) and lower (physical) pleasures. In Utilitarianism, he argued that happiness involves maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest number, with higher pleasures holding greater value. This perspective emphasizes collective well-being alongside personal fulfillment.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), a highly influential German philosopher and cultural critic, challenged conventional understandings of happiness, which he saw as rooted in conformity, passivity, and weakness. He proposed a radical alternative: true happiness arises not from comfort or moral compliance, but from the affirmation of life through the will to power—the intrinsic drive to create, overcome obstacles, and shape one’s own values. For Nietzsche, happiness is found in the struggle for self-mastery and the realization of one’s unique potential. This involves the exhilaration of growth, the triumph of overcoming adversity, and the joy of becoming who one truly is.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), a prominent figure in 20th-century existentialist philosophy, viewed happiness not as a state to be achieved or a goal to pursue, but rather as a byproduct of living authentically and embracing freedom and responsibility. He believed that humans are condemned to be free, meaning we are inherently free to make choices but also responsible for the consequences of those choices. The awareness of this radical freedom can be a source of anguish, as individuals realize they are solely responsible for creating their own meaning and purpose.
These varied perspectives highlight the complexity of happiness, which can be further understood through two contrasting worldviews: Materialism and Romanticism. These lenses, while not absolute, offer distinct approaches to exploring happiness—one rooted in external success and physical comfort, the other in emotional depth and spiritual connection.
Most of the philosophers discussed above align with either Materialism or Romanticism. Epicurus and Mill represent materialist tendencies, focusing on pleasure and measurable well-being. In contrast, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Buddha, Confucius, Rumi, Nietzsche, and Sartre emphasize inner transformation, virtue, or spiritual connection, aligning with Romanticism’s focus on emotional depth and subjective meaning.
Kant’s philosophy does not neatly fit either Materialism or Romanticism; instead, it serves as a bridge. His rejection of happiness as the foundation of morality in favor of duty guided by the categorical imperative moves away from Materialism’s focus on pleasure or external outcomes. Yet, unlike the Romantics, Kant does not center happiness in personal or emotional experience. Rather, he occupies a unique position, prioritising duty over happiness while acknowledging contentment as a possible byproduct of rational moral action.
Perhaps Kant’s perspective is especially relevant in today’s fast-paced world. Viewing happiness as a primary goal may, in fact, be an unhealthy way to approach life. Kant suggests that we focus on fulfilling our duties and pursuing our goals day by day, regardless of transient feelings of joy or suffering. In doing so, happiness arises not as the main objective but as a natural consequence of living responsibly and meaningfully. This way, we may find ourselves happier without ever having directly pursued it.
faznotes.com 
Leave a comment