In order to do that, I will view happiness through the view of "religion" as defined by various philosophers. So what is religion, exactly?
Defining it has been a problem since the objective view of religion became a serious concept of study in the enlightenment era. The enlightenment saw a shift of belief in the individual, from the past notion of obeying and accepting all that is told, to thinking for oneself in most matters not pertaining to mundane civil service, explained by Kant (Kant: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?). This "modern" approach to thinking was coined by Talal Asad, who clarified these views that belief changing from institutional belief to individual belief (Asad: Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam). This is why religion is difficult to define: because "the form...of their [old] beliefs would have been different from the form...of contemporary belief—and so too of their doubts and their disbeliefs," which, according to Asad, means that the definition of religion is constantly shifting. It is difficult to use a modern definition of religion when looking at the way people sought happiness in the past, because the fact is that there was simply not a mechanism for individual critical thought before a certain time period.
That considered, I will use the Emile Durkheim definition of religion. Durkheim attempts to account for the "modern" problem by stating that "a religion is a unified system of beliefs...relative to sacred things... beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church" (Durkheim: The Elementary Forms of Religious Life). This definition has some validity because it ignores whether or not religion is valid, and simply attempts to explain it; it also circumvents the modern problem by making the definition conceptual. It isn't perfect, however. This definition does not account for self-eminent sources of religion, as demonstrated by monks or nuns. It is also very broad, and the argument could be made that sports teams could fall under this header of religion.
However, we will disregard these flaws (mostly because I have yet to find a better definition. If you have one, enlighten me!) and push on with our discourse on happiness. Happiness is first mentioned by Socrates, where he asked "since we...desire happiness, how can we be happy?" which was problematic, since only the Hellenic Gods were permitted to be happy (McMahon, Darrin M.: What Does the Ideal of Happiness Mean?). Later, Christianity would display a wide variety of views on happiness, first pushing that desire was a sin. Then, after the reformation, the opposite belief persisted, with most thinking that "all sorrows, illnesses and melancholy come from Satan" (McMahon: Happiness). Even later, the French Revolution would see an attempt at forced happiness: “force every individual to take the only road that can lead them to the end they propose—
the end of happiness" (McMahon: Happiness). So, we have a general feel for what happiness is, or at least what it was in context to a number of eras.
Can religion explain these desires? It's possible. I won't go into Socrates' question only because I know little about behaviour of Greeks in ancient Greek religion. Starting with Christianity, however, there was a clear view through some parts of humanity where avoiding happiness due to its sinful nature dominated moral communities. For this, we can look to the number of Monastic orders that arose between 1000 AD and 1300 AD. There were the Cistercian Order, who emphasized "the rule of silence, contemplation, and poverty," the Carmelite Order and Franciscan Order, who taught the same, and many others (http://kwing.christiansonnet.org/courses/history/Hung_summary-3.htm). These popular groups were a response to the Papal worldliness at the time, and their emphasis on denying bodily pleasures to its adherents is suggestive of the sinful nature of happiness.
Later Christianity is completely exemplified today, all over the world. One only has to look down the street in the USA to see people gathering on Sundays to have prayers shared with the community; here, people sing hymns while catching up with others, and sharing refreshments. Such joy in the community of others emphasizes the necessity of people to dissuade themselves from solitary sadness, which are sins derived from Satan. To be fair, this is a view from an Agnostic Pagan (myself), and are not researched in any way. Still, this is a general view of modern Christianity as I've witness at my times in church.
The French Revolution is a good place to look at happiness, as the revolution itself nearly became its own religion after removing most traces of Christianity in the country (http://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church). The subsequent actions of the regime shed light on the belief that happiness should be forced upon people. The fact that the guillotines ran free with blood across the country point to the fact that there was an attempt to exterminate dissidents, those "unhappy" with the republic. This extermination of unhappy people in a way forced people to be happy, or at least act happy. Happiness, then, is defined as being content with the state or the current situation in France, in essence the religion of the government.
The examples could continue, but of course I would have to continue to speculate on most of these topics as I am no expert. But, I think I have done a deal in attempting to explain what happiness is, while also showing that there can't be a concrete definition of happiness. And if one thinks so, consider that if I changed my definition of religion to a Freudian definition, where religion is an illusion which has "certain dogmas, assertions about facts and conditions of external and internal reality which tells one something that one has not oneself discovered, and which claim that one should give them credence" (Frued, Sigmund: The Future of an Illusion). This would make all definitions of happiness presented here not make any sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment