- So in his "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle argues that everything we do in life is for some further purpose. So I go to school to get an education, I get an education to get a job, and I get a job so that I get money to buy nice things,

and so on and so on. But the question Aristotle asks is: what is the end point of all this? What lies at the top of the ladder? And for Aristotle, the point of all human life is to reach happiness. I think it's so elusive because the term itself is so laden.

We associate happiness with this beaming smile with a selfie on social media, but I think happiness is not a smiling face, it's more a smiling soul. But why do we find it confusing? Why is it hard to understand?

I think Daoism offers a really good analogy here. So imagine life as a dense, thorny forest, and in the middle of this forest is a well-paved superhighway. And it's easy to walk along that path,

but there are other paths, but these paths go through swamps, they go through thorns, they go up and down hills, and they are difficult, and I think happiness is a little bit like that. There are certain paths to happiness

which feel right and are right, but there are so many different paths with their different sirens' calls which attract us, and I think we don't realize we're on the wrong path often until it's too late and we find the going really difficult.

Hi, my name's Jonny Thompson. I'm a staff writer at Big Think and the author of the books "Mini Philosophy" and "Mini Big Ideas." I also run the social media account called Mini Philosophy. So I started the Mini Philosophy project

about seven years ago, and the aim was to try to teach philosophy to everybody. The idea was to navigate my way through the different philosophical traditions and schools. So if you imagine the history of philosophy

as some kind of big heat map, certain themes emerge, all to do with happiness, how to live the best life, and how to be a good person. You have Epicureanism, Cynicism,

Stoicism, and Skepticism. They all offer their version of happiness, literally trying to convince their disciples that their way is the best way to be happy. And that interested me.

But zooming out, you do start to notice certain commonalities and themes. So if we imagine happiness as being on the right path, using a Daoist metaphor, then the question we must ask ourselves

is: if we are unhappy, what's going on? The question then is about finding the right path again. Certain ideas emerge in the history of philosophy and theology that act as beacons or guides.

which we can walk towards. It's found in Confucius's idea of right virtue, it's found in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and it's found in Al-Ghazali's idea that the right way is in accordance with Allah.

So if we are unhappy, then we should work towards these lights, and I've identified three lights, or what I like to call pillars of happiness. The first pillar, or number one, is the idea that happiness is not measured by pleasure.

So the ancient Greeks had a lot of different words for happiness, and one of them is hedonia. And hedonia is what we might call simple pleasure. It's the big night out with some friends, but it's also drinking herbal tea on the sofa.

It's quite easy to measure and it's quite easy to understand because it's an emotional affect. Eudaimonia, though, is a much harder word to understand. It's often translated as "flourishing." And the reason why it's difficult to understand

is that it's often understood in reverse. So there are many moments in life where we look back on our experiences and think they were really hard at the time, but actually we were supremely happy. For example, raising young children, or even school

can be quite hard at the time, but we look back and think, "Those were moments when I was deeply, supremely happy." So the idea that pleasure is not an essential ingredient to happiness appears in many different philosophical schools.

So this idea is central to Buddhism. Buddhists tend to define pleasure as a desire satisfier. I want a drink of water, I reach for the water, I drink it, and that gives me pleasure.

But the problem, of course, is that this is an unwinnable game. Every day we have millions of desires, and there's no way we can satisfy them all. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

- [Narrator] You gotta whack the most moles! - [Mole] That smarts! - If we're to be happy at all, it has to be found outside of this notion of pleasure. We have to step beyond hedonism.

But the problem is that we risk going too far. It's a logical fallacy to say that just because pleasure doesn't equal happiness, suffering therefore must.  We risk fetishizing suffering, enjoying this kind of masochistic misery

and seeing that as essential to flourishing. But of course, that's not true. The second pillar, the second light which emerges across all these traditions is moderation; we have to find a middle way. It's essential to Daoism.

The idea is that life is not black or white, but a complex and confusing cocktail of things. Everything is gray.  Yin tends to represent the dark, the mysterious, the elusive, water, fluidity,

And yang tends to represent the exciting, the passionate, the loud, the sunny, and truth. And so for Daoists, we have to find the middle path, which is walking between yin and yang. But this idea of moderation is also seen in everyday life,

and it's in the Swedish lifestyle concept of lagom, which means "just the right amount." And there are two elements to it, really. The first element is a kind of fair usage policy where if I take all of the cookies in the cookie jar,

then it leaves none for anybody else. And so what I do will affect other people. The second element of lagom is a kind of recognition that sometimes less really is more. And so, for example, if I'm having a coffee with a friend,

that's fun, that's enjoyable, but if I have seven coffees, it's not so much. And this idea of moderation and balance appears again and again through different threads in philosophy. But the third thing that I notice appearing

is the idea that happiness is an unavoidable, emergent state of goodness; that you cannot be truly and meaningfully happy unless you are also virtuous. But of course, this raises a problem, and the problem is, what does "virtuous" mean?

Because if we zoom in on any different culture and any different time, what people define as right and wrong and good and bad will change from person to person, from philosopher to philosopher. So if you look at the history of philosophy, what you find

Is it certain that virtues have always been called virtues and certain vices have always been called vices? I think we can identify five. The first is altruism, and the vice is egoism. So this is seen in Augustine's code for monks,

and it's seen in Islam's zakat. It's there in Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Aquinas. The idea is a sense of other-regardedness, charity, and caring for other people. The second is kindness and cruelty.

This is best represented by the Golden Mean, which most people are familiar with from the Gospels: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But it's not just in the Gospels.

It's seen in Sanskrit, Tamil, Persian, ancient Greece, and the Vedas. But it's also seen in modern times in Kant's first categorical imperative and in Aquinas's natural law: be good and kind to other people.

The third virtue/vice is justice and injustice. I think if you put Plato, Mencius, and John Rawls in the same room, they would agree about the need for justice, which is the idea of some kind of retribution

for wrongdoers. The fourth virtue/vice is wisdom and ignorance. Socrates famously wrote that, "The unexamined life is not worth living." The Buddha encouraged his disciples to meditate at great length on the universe.

I can't think of any major philosopher who's been treated seriously for long who advocates for ignorance. And the fifth virtue/vice is humility and arrogance. And I think this has two strands, really. The first is a kind of intellectual humility,

which is best represented by John Stuart Mill, and the second is a kind of existential humility, which is represented by the religions. It's in Karl Barth, it's in Maimonides, and the word "Islam" literally translates

as "surrender to Allah." This is the idea that you are not the center of the universe. There are things outside your understanding which are far more powerful and which we occasionally have to bow to. So, taking all these together,

how can we actually apply these three pillars to our day-to-day lives? And I think for pillar number one, which is the idea that happiness cannot be measured by pleasure, I think a really good example of this is parenting.

If you ever go on social media and you see a reel or a post about a new parent, it's inevitably moaning about something: their sleep-deprived nights, or the germs, or their kids aren't eating anything, and it's full of stress and what appears to be misery.

But then if you commented on those posts saying, "Well, why did you bother having kids in the first place?" or "Why do kids make you unhappy?" often parents will reply, "I'm the happiest I've ever been."

And I think parenting is an example of looking back at a stage of your life and thinking, "All of the ingredients might have been pretty hard in themselves, but as a whole, I was deeply, existentially happy." Pillar number two is the idea of moderation in all things,

and I think this is best seen in dieting. So most diets end within a month, if not weeks, and most New Year's resolutions end pretty quickly. It's "I'm gonna go to the gym every day and run half marathons",

or "I'm going to give up chocolate" or "I'm never going to drink alcohol ever again." And they fail because they are so extreme. And the best diets in history allow a degree of flexibility and moderation. So dieting, when it's done at these extremes,

does work for some people, no doubt, but for most people, dieting is best when it happens in moderation. So pillar number three is that happiness requires goodness, which might seem ridiculous to lots of people,

because we can point to people who seem to be pretty cruel or immoral and yet they seem to be also very happy. But the evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar did a study into gossip, and he argued that gossip is a kind of social culling,

where we talk about the cheaters and the liars and the thieves in our lives so we can shun them from society. Inversely, those who are friendly and kind will be welcomed into society. So we can conclude that those who are kind and friendly,

will have friends, and those who have friends are also happy. What I find really interesting is if you zoom out and look at the history of philosophy, you see these three pillars emerging, and they act essentially as a diagnostic tool. If you feel unhappy in life,

you can look at these pillars and think, "Which of these three am I not meeting? Is it that I'm confusing a hard patch in my life with being unhappy? Is it that I'm going to two extremes? Or is it that possibly I'm not being as good as I could be?"

If we recognize that those are the problems in our lives, we can take steps to fix them.

The philosophy of happiness, explained in 10 minutes | Jonny Thomson

Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life. Other Frequent contributors include Michio Kaku & Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Head to bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics. ​Join Big Think+ to gain access to an immense library of content. It features insight from many of the most celebrated and intelligent individuals in the world today.

   - Subscribe for daily videos.
   - Business inquiries and fan suggestions welcome.

Big Think

행복에 대한 아리스토텔레스의 견해와 행복의 파악하기 어려운 본질

아리스토텔레스는 모든 행동이 궁극적으로 행복으로 이어지는 목적을 지향한다고 믿었습니다.

화자는 인생의 목적의 종착점에 대해 질문하며 아리스토텔레스의 대답으로 행복을 꼽습니다.

화자는 행복에 대한 사회적 관점(웃는 얼굴)과 더 깊고 영혼이 충만한 행복을 대조합니다.

도가에서는 인생의 길을 숲에 비유하는데, 쉬운 길이 항상 행복으로 이어지는 것은 아닙니다.

미니 철학 소개와 행복에 대한 탐구

조니 톰슨이 자신과 자신의 미니 철학 프로젝트를 소개합니다.

이 프로젝트는 다양한 학파의 사상을 탐구함으로써 철학을 가르치는 것을 목표로 합니다.

다양한 철학적 전통(에피쿠로니즘, 냉소주의, 금욕주의, 회의주의)은 행복에 대한 다양한 관점을 제시합니다.

연사는 행복을 향한 올바른 길을 찾는 것과 관련된 공통된 주제를 파악합니다.

행복은 쾌락(헤도니아)으로만 측정되는 것이 아니라 번영(유다이모니아)으로도 측정됩니다.

불교에서는 쾌락을 욕망을 충족시키는 것으로 보고, 끝없는 욕망을 채우기 위한 승산이 없는 게임으로 여깁니다.

두 번째 기둥은 중용이며, 도교의 음양에서 예시된 것처럼 극단 사이에서 균형을 찾는 것입니다.

스웨덴의 '라곰'(딱 적당한 양)이라는 개념은 절제와 공정한 사용을 강조합니다.

세 번째 기둥은 행복은 선과 미덕의 출현 상태라는 것입니다.

행복에 있어 다섯 가지 핵심 덕목과 그 중요성

연사는 다양한 문화와 철학에서 일관되게 중시되는 다섯 가지 덕목(이타주의, 친절, 정의, 지혜, 겸손)을 소개합니다.

이타주의와 이기주의에 대해 다양한 종교적, 철학적 전통의 예를 들며 논의합니다.

친절과 잔인함을 강조하며 황금률과 다양한 문화권에서의 황금률의 존재를 언급합니다.

플라톤, 맹자, 존 롤스의 예를 들어 정의와 불의에 대해 강조합니다.

지혜와 무지에 대해 논의하며 자기 성찰과 배움의 가치를 강조합니다.

지적 겸손과 실존적 겸손을 아우르며 겸손과 오만함을 탐구합니다.

행복의 기둥을 일상 생활에 적용하기

행복이 항상 당장의 즐거움에만 있는 것은 아니라는 점을 설명하기 위해 육아를 예로 들었습니다.

다이어트의 절제는 두 번째 기둥의 예로 제시됩니다.

가십에 관한 로빈 던바의 연구를 예로 들어 선과 행복의 연관성을 살펴봅니다.

이 세 가지 요소는 행복을 달성하기 위해 개선이 필요한 부분을 파악하는 진단 도구 역할을 합니다.

The philosophy of happiness, explained in 10 minutes | Jonny Thomson

The philosophy of happiness, explained in 10 minutes | Jonny Thomson

스크립트