The concept of happiness is undoubtedly an attractive one and the ultimate goal for many people regardless of age, nationality, gender, and other characteristics. Yet, despite being universally desirable, happiness is hard to describe or characterize. Jamie Anderson’s “Is Happiness the Beginning or the End?” discusses the view on happiness in the American cultural consciousness and the perceived ideological conflict regarding the specificities of its nature. An idea of happiness existing “at the end of the chase” is a prevalent one in culture and philosophy, yet other accounts claim it to be an innate right that should be a given. This paper aims to analyze the author’s thesis on the subject and evaluate whether he was convincing in delivering his perspective.
American Declaration of Independence conceptualizes happiness as one of the universal rights granted to every individual by virtue of existing. However, as stated in the article, contemporary research indicates broad casual dissatisfaction with life respondents’ lives. Anderson refers to the 2013 Gallup poll stating that only 30% of Americans are happy at work, which constitutes the core of daily activities for most of the population. This data illustrates the general level of unhappiness, mainly due to the high percentage of time working Americans dedicate to their occupation. Whether due to stress or a generally negative attitude towards their field, people are much less happy with their routine than the philosophical ideals demand them to be.
Anderson later applies the findings from the lecture of Shawn Achor, who has analyzed the ways the human brain responds to casual failures and successes. Momentary satisfaction is easy to achieve, but it does not equal happiness for the majority of people. The idea of happiness has more in common with the lasting sense of satisfaction and prosperity, which, according to Achor, is not a natural condition for the human brain.
As both the paper and Achor’s lecture suggest, lasting happiness from successes and achievements is an exception, rather than the rule. After achieving a goal, people experience a brief sense of triumph and move on to the next goalpost. Therefore, the connection between these achievements and happiness is very relative, and daily successes usually have little to do with the overall feeling of satisfaction.
However, as Anderson suggests in the closing section of his paper, perception shapes the facts instead of the opposite. He effectively comments on this idea in the discussion of the role of optimism. The optimistic approach to life and conscious positivity might improve one’s level of simple happiness, as the person becomes aware of the degree to which their attitude is involved. Such ideology requires self-improvement and dedication to the new mindset, which might be emotionally taxing under daily stress. Yet overall, it is a comforting notion to know that everyone has greater power over their happiness than suggested.
In conclusion, Armstrong’s article is effective in its attempts to comment on the relationship between an individual’s attitude and level of happiness. It touches briefly on the specifics of the brain without getting into excessive neurological detail and remains comprehensible at all times. Anderson is generally successful in simplifying the abstract idea of happiness and presenting it as an accessible goal that one can achieve despite the existing difficulties.