by Bill Karr

A large portion of free time during my senior year in high school was devoted to defining happiness and/or how to find it. This was my attempt to help rid misery, disgust, and hatred from the lives of some of the people around me. It is important to address this issue because most people in the world are floundering after some kind of peace or happiness, but one cannot chase what one cannot see. The intention of this manifesto is to help share what I have discovered personally. Acute definitions bear significance when trying to get through to a reader on a topic like this. Thus, definitions will precede my arguments, and should be kept in mind while the arguments are presented.

The definition of selfishness presented in class is the one which I choose to use here. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines ‘selfish’ as “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.” I emphasize the second part more than the first because of the relative words ‘excessively’ and ‘exclusively’. The most important part of this definition, as was emphasized in class, was ‘without regard for others.’ On the opposing side of the spectrum, benevolence must be defined. The most simple and agreeable definition I came across was again found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Benevolence was defined as “disposition to do good”. Since ‘good’ is not a very strong word to work on in a definition, I will extend this definition to “the disposition to act with intentions to help and/or care for other people”. Although these intentions are the basis of the definition of benevolence, I choose to allow self-regarding benefits into the picture. In particular, the definition necessarily involves intentions to benefit others, but concerns with the self do not disengage benevolence from the acts.

With a platform on which to work, the first issue to be discussed is the difference between pleasure, happiness, and how they are related to selfishness. Chasing pleasure and chasing happiness are two different things. Although chasing pleasure can root from selfishness, I claim that chasing happiness is not selfish. Pleasure can be considered to be the temporary feeling of enjoyment. If someone is after only pleasure in his/her goals, there is automatically disregard for others. Often people pursue pleasure with the will to put down other people in the process. For this reason, certain situations can show the pursuit of pleasure alone as being selfish. On the contrary, happiness is something that supersedes selfishness. All of us may be pursuing happiness in some fashion, but happiness is a state of tranquility with a general enjoyment and appreciation for what one has and for whom one has around them. Pleasure is found in happiness necessarily, but pleasure does not imply happiness. In my opinion, a person in a selfish state is pursuing pleasure oriented goals because they do not have tranquility! In other words, selfish acts show insecurity; it acts as a reflection of what one thinks of oneself. These ideas certainly play a role in everyday life. Daily life entails avoiding things that take away from the enjoyable aspects of life. Most of our lives are based around our pursuit of happiness, especially for Americans.

Connections between the ideas of pleasure, happiness, and selfishness can allow one to consider the following: is an unpleasant benevolent life preferable to a pleasant selfish life? My best answer is that a life spent caring exclusively for oneself above others and with disregard to others cannot be a pleasant life. Albert Einstein once said, “A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.” What Einstein was trying to say is something that I have been taught my whole life. When one is after money, material goods, or physical pleasure, there is always more. This fact causes devastating amounts of frustration to those who spend their lives pursuing these things as a central purpose in life. It takes a step back to realize that these things never make someone feel completely satisfied. There is always something missing. Although I feel this way, I believe that it is near impossible to live a completely selfish or a completely benevolent life. People tend to feel for other people in some way or another. This shows that it is in our nature to care for others to some extent. As far as my own opinions go, I have faith that Jesus Christ is the only person who ever lived a completely benevolent life, but this is not an arguable belief. I also believe that the majority of the people in the world are mostly selfish in their everyday life, and by no means am I saying that I am an exception to that. In contrast to this belief, I also have faith that everyone has some want in them to be a good person; to make someone else feel good occasionally for no self-concerning reasons at all. These ideas are based on personal experience.

Now that my perception is known, the rest of this will contain my thoughts on what degrees of selfishness and benevolence are needed for a good life. I define a good life as a life mostly lived in the state of happiness described earlier. Therefore, my claim is that selfishness is not needed at all to be in a state of happiness. Also, I feel that some degree of benevolence is required for a good life. This follows from Einstein’s quote above. When people learn what it means to live outside of oneself, a sense of security dawns on them. The degree of benevolence necessary is that which makes the person feel like a ‘good person’. When one has confidence that they are good to other people, I believe that they gain a sense of self-respect that allows them to be happy with whom they are.

Of course this implies a certain definition of a good life. The Bible says that Jesus once asked, “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” For me, a good life is a life full of self-respect, care for others separate from concerns and benefits for oneself, and general ability to appreciate other people for whom they are. I have been led to believe this because of the way I have been raised and its impact on my general attitude in the present. Another Albert Einstein quotation that is evidence that living for other people allows happiness to fill a person is the following: “A hundred times a day I remind myself that my inner and outer lives are based on the labors of other people, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.” This idea is one of the driving forces behind why I love to share knowledge so much. My interest in physics and mathematics is not only a means of investing my interests and talents in something productive, but it is the medium by which I feel that I am most helpful to people. I spend a great deal of time here at IUPUI helping people understand mathematics and physics, with confidence that they know I am not only here to make money. People are well aware that I genuinely enjoy helping them understand things. This is my attempt to give in the same measure that I have received and am still receiving and knowing this makes it very easy for me to feel well about whom I am.

My hope is that this was sufficient to bring ideas to the reader that I have been trying to share with people for the last couple of years. Definitions of selfishness and benevolence and their relation to happiness and pleasure should be clear. Also, the roles of selfishness and benevolence in daily life and the like have been discussed. In conclusion, I will end with something I wrote a while ago to illustrate my main point. In the few moments of our lives that we are truly serene, we are able to drop our differences and connect wholly to the world; when the strings of our inner sinful feelings of hatred and aggravation unlatch from those surrounding us. My goal is to show that those who have not escaped the prison of the self lack the divine serenity that allows me to accept how the world feels towards me, my thoughts, and my feelings.

My dad encouraged me a little while back to post the essays I had to write in philosophy this semester. That said, I am going to type up a few and put them on here. Feel free to tell me what you think!

On the Differences between the Mind and Body:

The body is a set of organs that work based on physiological and chemical mechanics. Although, (in our experience) one must have a body to experience having a mind, mind is very distinct from the body because it is non-material. It is not physically explainable like the body - it is just something most of us agree that we experience. Mind entails being aware of what’s going on around oneself, and having perceptions that one observes and about which one thinks. The body is something that the mind is stuck inside which is why we cannot just decide to have other peoples’ bodies instead of our own. Thus, the distinction between mind and body should now be evident.

Is Identity Relative or Universal?

Personal identity is a relative thing in some sense, but can be taken as a universal thing that each person in one’s life has. Although people identify one by one’s body, there is a quality that people are aware of within each other person that can be called identity. Ask the question, “Why am I not someone else?” It quickly follows that there is a less physical, but definite way to identify yourself because you have this closed property that you aren’t anyone else but you. I say this, though it is true that there are mental disorders that some people have with which sometimes they are not aware of whom they are, and maybe even think they are “someone else”. This unsureness should not take away from the concept of that person’s identity though; only their perception of whom they are is flawed.

How do the Mind and Body Influence Each Other?

The mind and body influence each other in several ways. The mind is what takes into account how the body perceives the world in which it lives. In this respect, the mind is limited in what it experiences because it looks at everything through a sometimes (and arguably most times) flawed perception. The body is also the tool through which we exert the mind’s decisions. Since the body is limited in the physic sense, the mind is affected. The body must obey physical laws regardless of whether the mind wants to or not.

Thus, it should be clear that the mind and body affect each other intimately.

Does One’s Identity Persist Beyond Bodily Death?

Identity does! When a person dies, we are still able to talk about that person and identify who they were, so their identity must remain in tact. How could it be said that identity goes away? Just because a person’s body stops working does not mean they from then on cannot be said to be who they were, even if we are unsure of whom that person was. The number 1 will always be identified by the fact that a*1 = a, but in the equation a^2 = a*a, the identity of 1 still holds even though it is not seen in the latter.

This example should clarify the persistence of a person’s identity in the realm in which our minds believe to live. (…whether or not they agree which realm that is…) =)

That is the last one I’ll post. I’ll post more on other topics in the future.

A new friend of mine at school talks with me a lot about politics and science, and we have very similar views. He is very much more interested in economics than I, so he knows of many interesting people. One of which he told me about tonight named Eric Hoffer. I found an Eric Hoffer quote with which I cannot agree more…

“A ruling intelligentsia, whether in Europe, Asia or Africa, treats the masses as raw material to be experimented on, processed, and wasted at will.”

I contradict myself in the feelings I get when I think about things like this. Part of me wants to get into a leadership position and tell people about this horrible truth that is happening the the academic world, but to do so would be, in a way, becoming what I attempt to warn against.

My experience in the academic world has revealed me to many things. I am around so many people who are incredibly intelligent, but at the same time, so crushed and manipulated by the lead feet of academia.

The kind of people I encounter are passionate, able to adapt quickly to change, and have a lot of will to cooperate in a drive to right the situations in the world that have gone wrong. The danger in this is that too many of us in this fantasy world get caught up in what we can do. Why has the idea of letting people decide for themselves left this school of thought?

Tonight was Speech Night at IUPUI, where 7 chosen speakers got to deliver a persuasive speech to all the introductory speech students, and I could not help but do cringe at how power hungry most of these people are. This tone of voice is dangerous. Luckily, the girl who ended up winning was an exception to this group I talk about. She was the only one who gave a speech directed at taking individual action, not applying yourself to group mentality and calling on the government to resolve the issue. For this, I congratulate her. It shows that when you speak at the individual level, it can be more powerful then any flock-of-birds mentality, no matter how shiny the results of the latter may appear.

This said, I ask for anyone who is in college right now to be careful in the progressive stream of thought you’ve been placed in, for if we continue without questioning it, we will become blinded by the control academia tries to persuade us that we deserve. Why should we think we know what’s best for the rest of society if we have repeatedly shown to be self-serving when we take reign?

That said, I dissent! And I hope you do, too!