Michael Bishop is a philosopher at Florida State
University. He wrote, with J.D. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology ofHuman Judgment (Oxford, 2005). And more recently he’s written The Good Life: Unifying the Philosophy and Psychologyof Well-Being (Oxford 2015). The goal in both books is the same: Build a
theory that makes sense of what both philosophers and psychologists have to say
about normative matters. Bishop is currently working on a number of projects,
including one that aims to show how we might improve how we teach critical
thinking. You can find more of his writings at his blog.
There’s
an old yarn about six people groping in the dark to study an elephant: The tusk
was thought a spear, the side a wall, the trunk a snake, the leg a tree, the
ear a fan, and the tail a rope. A happy life is like the elephant. It consists
of many varied parts. And we philosophers, groping in the dark, hold fast to
our little corner of the elephant, confident that we’ve got the
whole thing figured out.
Imagine Felicity:
She has a life that’s valuable for her. She’s happy, she has well-being. (I will use
these expressions interchangeably.) Now, take a few moments and come up with
three facts about Felicity that would make you confident she's happy. Did you
do it? You didn't, did you? Don't worry. Because when you do do it,
you're going to find that every fact you've come up with is some combination of
Felicity’s:
• positive feelings (pleasure,
joy, contentment, satisfaction);
• positive attitudes (optimism,
joie de vivre, curiosity);
• positive traits (determination,
courage, friendliness); or
• successes (academic or professional accomplishment, good health,
strong relationships).
Philosophers have a tendency to be like the person
who thinks the elephant is a spear. Hedonists explain Felicity’s well-being in terms of her positive
feelings (and lack of negative feelings). Aristotelians explain it in terms of
her virtues (positive traits) and perhaps enough luck so that her virtues are
rewarded. Desire (or preference satisfaction) theorists explain her well-being
in terms of her successes, understood as Felicity (suitably informed) getting
what she wants.
Objective list theorists do a bit better. They identify
happy lives with having a reasonable number of happy life parts (or
prerequisites for those parts). But just as an elephant isn’t a random assortment of elephant parts, a
happy life isn’t a random assortment
of happy life parts. They have a shape and a structure that objective list
theories neglect.
In The Good Life, I try to describe the
whole elephant. I start by assuming that positive psychology - the psychology
of happy lives - studies happy lives. And then I argue that positive psychology
studies enduring causal networks of positive feelings, attitudes, traits, and
accomplishments. (You can find more on this reading of positive psychology here.)
When you’re happy, your good
feelings, attitudes and traits work together to contribute to your successes;
and those successes in turn feed back into your good feelings, attitudes and
traits. In the book, I called these self-maintaining
feeling-attitude-trait-success clusters “positive causal networks” or PCNs. But on the internet, I can throw off the shackles of
cautious academic discourse and call them what they really are: positive
grooves. You have a happy life - you’re in a state of well-being - when you’re in a positive groove.
I'll bet you have questions: Can people who aren't in a full-blown positive groove nonetheless have a moderate degree of well-being? What do you mean by “positive” feelings, attitudes, traits? Can your “groovy” theory account for the intrinsic value (or normativity) of well-being? And what about this counterexample I've just formulated? I can't adequately address these objections here, but I do try to address them in the book. Instead, I want to focus on an important issue I ignored in the book.
You make judgments about who's happy and who's
unhappy. So you have ideas, explicit or implicit, about what a happy life looks
and feels like. And some ideas people have are harmful. They're imperfect
cognitions, if you will. For example, studies suggest that thinking like a
hedonist can make you unhappy. We’re
not built to experience ever increasing bouts of pleasure. But if you expect
that you'll approach hedonic ecstasy as your life gets better for you, you’re bound to end up sorely and needlessly
disappointed.
While hedonism gives you the wrong idea of what
happiness feels like, the “groovy” theory doesn’t describe what happiness feels like
either. You experience or detect many parts of a positive groove - the good
feelings, attitudes, traits, and at least some of your successes. But you don’t notice the groove itself. You don't see
how all the parts link up, how they build on one another. You don’t see the whole elephant. This shouldn't be
a surprise. If we could easily discern positive grooves, we wouldn't need
psychologists to identify them and figure out how they work!
So what does a happy life feel like? What does
it feel like when you’re in a positive
groove? You’ll feel actively
engaged with people and projects you value and enjoy. That’s it. And if you
reflect on what's reasonable to expect happiness to be for creatures like us, I
hope you think that’s enough.