Religious,philosophica and Psychological Foundations of Happiness

Section (2). Philosophical Foundations of Happiness

It appears that we can hardly find any philosophers who have not spoken of happiness. It indicates the close relationship between philosophy and happiness. Some of philosophers have written much about happiness, and some less. Investigating the details of their theories regarding happiness is impossible here, especially considering the fact that the main purpose of this book is description of the correlatives of happiness and those factors (religious, philosophical and psychological) that cause humans to reach happiness. We have divided here the philosophers' viewpoints concerning happiness into two categories: non-Muslim and non-Iranian philosophers & Muslim and Iranian philosophers.

2-1. Non-Muslim and non-Iranian philosophers

Philosophical discussion of the concept of 'happiness' has been tended to be found mainly within moral philosophy. It is associated especially with the classical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The utilitarian assert that happiness is, as a matter of fact, the ultimate aim at which all human actions are directed and that it is therefore the ultimate standard by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of actions. 'Actions are right', says Mill, 'in proportion as they tend to promote happiness'- that is to say, 'the general happiness', the happiness of all concerned.

Still following Bentham, Mill goes on to equate happiness with 'pleasure and the absence of pain'. For Bentham, the identity of 'happiness' and 'pleasure' is quite straight forward. An action's tendency to promote happiness is determined simply by adding up the amounts of pleasure, and subtracting the amounts of pain, which it will produce. It is a matter solely of quantitative factors such as the intensity and the duration of the pleasurable and painful feelings.

Mill is aware that this is altogether too crude. Happiness, he acknowledges, depends not only on the quantity but also on the quality of pleasures. Human beings, because of the distinctively human capacities they possess, require more to make them happy than the accumulation of pleasurable sensations. They are made happy not by the 'flower pleasures' but by the 'higher pleasures' - 'the pleasures of the intellect, of the feeling and imagination, and of the moral sentiments'.

Mill departs still further from the purely quantitative notion of happiness when he recognizes that it is not just a sum of unrelated experiences but also an ordered whole. To say that human beings aim at happiness is not to deny that they pursue more specific goals such as knowledge or artistic and cultural activity or moral goodness, and that they pursue these things for their own sake. These are some of the 'ingredients' which go to make up a life of happiness.

Mill is here attempting, perhaps unsuccessfully, to combine two traditions of thought about 'happiness'. The identification of 'happiness' with 'pleasure' we may call the 'hedonistic' conception of happiness. This we may contrast with what has been called the 'eudemonistic' conception of happiness. The term comes from the Greek word 'eudaimonia', which is usually translated as 'happiness'. Although one of the Greek philosophical schools, Epicureanism, did identify eudaimonia with pleasure. The Greek concept lends itself less easily than the English term to this identification. In English one can speak of 'feeling happy', and although the relation between such states of feeling and a life of happiness is not entirely clear, they are undoubtedly connected - one could not be said to have a happy life if one never felt happy. The term eudaimonia refers not so much to a psychological state as to the objective character of a person's life.

The classic account of eudaimonia is given by Aristotle. He emphasizes that it has to do with the quality of one's life as a whole; indeed, he sees some plausibility in the traditional aphorism 'call no man happy until he is dead' (though he also recognizes that there is little plausibility in calling someone happy after he is dead). For Aristotle happiness is to be identified above all with the fulfillment of one's distinctively human potentialities. These are located in the exercise of reason, in both its practical and its theoretical form. Aristotle is thus the ancestor of one stand in Mill, and of that general conception of 'happiness' which links it with ideas of 'fulfillment' and 'self-realization'. Norman; cited in Honderich, 2005.

All ethical theories accord some importance to human happiness. They differ first in their conception of what that happiness consists in, secondly in views of how an agent's own personal happiness is aligned with, or traded against, the general happiness, and thirdly in whether it is necessary to acknowledge any other end for human action. The simplest doctrine is that happiness is itself quite straightforward, consisting for example in occasions of pleasure; that agents only do seek or ought to seek their own happiness; and that there is no other possible or desirable end of action. The Cyrenaica may have held a doctrine along these lines. Complexity arises with more subtle conceptions of the nature of happiness. Finally, theories of ethics that are not consequentialist in nature may recognize other ethically important features of action than those arising from the goal of maximizing either personal or social happiness (Blackburn, 2005).

In ordinary use, the word 'happiness' has to do with one's situation (one is fortunate) or with one's state of mind (one is glad, cheerful) or, typically, with both. These two elements appear in different proportions on different occasions. If one is concerned with a long stretch of time (as in 'a happy life'), one is likely to focus more on situation than on state of mind. In a short period of time, it is not uncommon to focus on states of mind.

By and large philosophers are more interested in longterm cases. One's life is happy if one is content that life has brought one much of what one regards as important. There is a pull in these lifetime assessments towards a person's objective situation and away from the person's subjective responses. The important notion for ethics is 'wellbeing' -that is, a notion of what makes an individual life go well. 'Happiness' is important because many philosophers have thought that happiness is the only thing that contributes to wellbeing, or because they have used 'happiness' to mean the same as 'wellbeing'.

What, then, makes a life go well? Some have thought that it was the presence of a positive feeling tone. Others have thought that it was having one's desires fulfilled - either actual desires (as some would say) or informed desires (as others would say). It is unclear how stringent the requirement of 'informed' must be; if it is fairly stringent it can, in effect, require abandoning desire explanations and adopting instead an explanation in terms of a list of good-making features in human life (Griffin, 2000).

The distinction between happiness and pleasure is frequently blurred. In ordinary Language, happiness is frequently used to indicate a more stable, less intense state than pleasure. Yet one could hardly predicate happiness of a life that was altogether without pleasure. While those teleological moralists who have favored utilitarian conceptions of moral obligation have (apart from the late Professor G. E. Moore and his followers) usually adopted a hedonist conception of the end of moral action, those moralists who have combined teleological ideas with the rejection of utilitarianism have inclined to speak of a happy life as the end of human beings, happiness being found in, and sometimes identified with, a life of fulfillment and harmony both within the individual's relations with others.

In much contemporary thinking about ethics, the notion of happiness is frequently invoked in criticism of moral conceptions which exalt such ideas as duty, obedience to superiors and established traditions, heroic engagement, and even commitment, and at least by implication deprecate the significance of the individual's concern for his or her own and others' welfare. Against such views (not without their representatives among avant-garde theologians), the importance of happiness as an unsophisticated, but comprehensive, human end receives justified and intelligible emphasis. (Mackinnon; cited in Macquarrie & Childress, 2005).

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence that every human being has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For Americans, this pursuit of happiness has been more than just an abstract right. It has also been the concrete inspiration for many millions- among them immigrants, pioneers, entrepreneurs and industrialists- to follow the American dream.

In the Varieties of Religious Experience, William James wrote, "How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness, is in fact for most men at all times the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure." What is the happiness that motivates so many? Is it a good thing to pursue? Is it something that can ever be caught?

A look at the evolution of the meaning of the term "happiness" in Western intellectual history puts these questions in a helpful, broader perspective. Happiness was originally understood as a product of chance. Etymologically, the English word derived from the Old Norse happ, which means "luck" or "fortune." This etymological connection between happiness and luck occurs in virtually every indo-European Language (McMahon 2006, cited in Lachs &;Talisse, 2008 ).

Socrates and subsequent ancient philosophers argued that happiness is at least partly a function of human choice. By volitionally cultivating virtue, we can develop a character that is more conducive to happiness. The cultivation of virtue requires the development of good habits of thought and action.

With the rise of Christianity, the emphasis remained on the cultivation of virtue, but the means for its cultivation and its expected results changed tremendously. For Christians, Virtue was something that could be achieved only with divine help. And a virtuous life was no guarantee of earthly happiness, but rather a pathway to happiness in the after life.

It was in the modern period that happiness was seemed not as a function of chance or as a reward for the arduous few, but as a birthright for all. With unprecedented advances in science, technology, and medicine, it seemed that the causes of human unhappiness could be eradicated and that each person would be able to pursue happiness in their own way.

The two most influential types of theories of happiness in philosophy and the social sciences today are hedonic theories and eudemonic theories for hedonic theorists; happiness is a function of the way we feel in each moment of our lives. The psychological researcher Edward Diener, for sample, defines happiness as "subjective well-being" which he operationalizes in terms of high positive affect, low negative affect, and high life satisfaction. In other words, the more pleasant emotions you have, the fewer unpleasant emotions you have, and the more satisfied you are with life, the happier you are. On this definition of happiness, empirical research indicates that most people are, in fact, happy, and that it is possible to become sustainably happier.

For eudaimonic theorists, happiness is more than a function of subjective states. Following Aristotle (whose term eudemonia means "happiness" or "human flourishing"), these theorists argue that happiness requires certain objective conditions of wealth, friendship, physical attractiveness, high social status, and good children. For the contemporary philosopher Martha Nussbaum, the list necessary for happiness includes, among other things, living a normal life span, enjoying good physical health, experiencing normal human emotions, and having control over one's environment.

While Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence may be correct that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human right, happiness itself seems very difficult to define, and even harder to achieve. Modern optimism about the achievement of happiness has been difficult to sustain, given the intractability of certain diseases, the frequency of natural catastrophes, and perhaps most of all, the high degree of misery humans continue to visit on each other. John Dewey criticized hedonic theories of happiness on the grounds that growth sometimes requires unpleasant choices. He would argue that those who live their lives in the quest for good feelings actually stunt their own growth.

It is good for these and similar critiques to temper naïve optimism about the achievability of happiness and to clear the ground for the hard work of realistic progress. Current Scientific study of well-being and human flourishing may not be able to guarantee everyone immediate happiness, but it may help us learn how to become more effective in its pursuit (Powelski; cited in Laches & Talisse, 2008). Socrates was of the opinion that money and power were not bad in themselves, thus the wealthy might have been admirable if they had earned money virtuously (De Batton, 1969).

Socrates believed that happiness was acquired through doing virtuous deeds (De Batton, 1969).

If other thinkers had preceded Socrates with moral and social criticism, he was certainly the first to challenge his fellows on an individual basis with maxim that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Ap. 38a). Socrates believes that this is the condition of all human beings - as such they are neither good nor bad, but owing to their needy nature all have a desire for the good and the beautiful, the possession of which would be happiness for them. Because all people want happiness, they all pursue the beautiful to the best of their ability (205a - 206 b). In each case, they desire the particular kinds of objects they take to provide the fulfillment of their needs.

He admits the explanation of the refinement and sublimation that a person experiences by recognizing higher and higher kinds of beauty (210 a - 212 a). Starting with the love of one beautiful body, the individual gradually learns to appreciate not only all physical beauty, but also the beauty of the mind, and in the end it gets a glimpse of the supreme kind of beauty, the From of the beautiful itself, a beauty that is neither relative nor a matter of degree. Suffice it to say that the elevation to a place 'beyond the heavens', where the best souls get a glimpse of true being, symbolize the mind's access to the Form, including the nature of the virtue (247c-e). Depending on the quality of each human soul, an individual will live either a carnal, earthy life and lose its wings, or it will live a spiritual, philosophical life in pursuit of beauty. In each case, the quality of the beauty pursued will also determine the cycle of reincarnations that is at store for each soul (248c-249c) (quoted from Frede, 2003).

Socrates says that happiness is in a life in which pleasure and knowledge are combined with each other. Reaching such happiness requires striving and endeavor. Those who reach this happiness are really prosperous. Socrates believes that happiness is obtained through preventing carnal desires. The happiness of each individual is acquired through the society's happiness (Forughi, 1997).

Socrates found out that mankind's happiness is in self-recognition and nurturing one's spirit and soul. Moreover, He believed that acquisition of knowledge, piety and virtue was the origin of happiness.

Socrates admitted that our true happiness is promoted by doing what is right. When our true utility is served (tending our soul), we are achieving happiness. Happiness is evident from the long- term effect on the soul.

Socrates anticipates Thoreau in arguing that the "unexamined life is not worth living". For Socrates, this meant that happiness and moral living were linked to each other. While we are pursuing virtue, we are in fact pursuing happiness, since to be virtuous is also to be happy. Socrates makes it seem both very appealing and quite possible that there is a relationship between human virtue and human happiness. For Socrates, happiness is truly possible only when the soul has been perfected, and so all but the most virtuous are denied happiness.

Like all ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based eudemonistic ethics. That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of thought and conduct, the virtues (aréte = 'excellence') are the requisite skills and character - traits (Frede, 2003).

Plato and Aristotle believed that a happy man is the one who is able to think. Thinking is the highest man's function. A thoughtful person is less dependent on the external and outer conditions. His happiness is inside him. It means that he is dependent upon his inner conditions or powers, while a seeker of fame or wealth is seeking that which is affected by external conditions; this is a fleeting happiness. Therefore, satisfying fleeting feelings is pleasure and not happiness. Happiness is not an imaginary or emotional state. It is a fundamental bond which encompasses all man's attachments, dependencies or interests. In other words, the real happiness of man is in actualizing of his particular perfection. This rarely obtained man's happiness is actualizing his potential aptitudes (Rendel & Bakler 1996). Plato's ethics is based on man's happiness that is to actualize the man's highest virtue. It can be said that this virtue is the real development of man's personality. When the man's soul is in a state, which it should be, man is happy (Copleston, 1989).

Plato considers happiness as the highest virtue, and believes that reaching the virtue is the results of acquiring knowledge and episteme. Plato considers happiness as the pure and real pleasure that has a spiritual aspect (Naqib zadeh 1993).

The man's highest virtue, i.e. happiness, includes the knowledge and recognition of God. A man who does not know the divine aspect of the being cannot be happy.

Plato has allocated the part twelve of his "republic" to "happiness and unhappiness". He believes in this regard that happiness is circumscribed by a number of properties -freedom, lack of need, and lack of fear (Pojman, 2003). He adds (in the Republic) that the worst person is also the unhappiest person. Since morality is the rule of the rational mind, then a moral life is far happiness and more desirable.

In the tradition of Aristotle, happiness is broadly understood as something like well-being and has been viewed, not implausibly, as a kind of natural end of all human activities. Happiness in this sense is broader than pleasure, insofar as the latter designates a particular kind of feeling, whereas well-being does not. Attributions of happiness, moreover, appear to be normative in a way in which attributions of pleasure are not. It is thought that a truly happy person has achieved, is achieving, or stands to achieve certain things respecting the "truly important" concerns of human life. Of course, such achievements will characteristically involve states of active enjoyment of activities - where, as Aristotle first pointed out, there are no distinctive feelings of pleasure apart from the doing of the activity itself (Audi, 2001).

Aristotle considers the happy life as the good life for man. He says that happiness is the soul's activity in accordance with complete virtue (Popkin & Stroll, 1995).

Since the most distinguished property of man is his power of thought, the more this power is increased the higher he will be. Therefore, the intellectual life is the basic provision of happiness (Durant, 1983).

Happiness is the very virtue that is obtained through intellection. Happiness can be the acquired morality based on moderation (Kardan, 2002).

Aristotle believes that the origin and essence of happiness is the complete knowledge and spirit purity (Durant, 1983). One of the requisites of virtue is that one enjoys those things he should do and hates those things he should not do. "Friendship" and having good friends can help humans achieve to happiness but an average wealth along with a behavior based on virtues is sufficient (Koshentzo, 1998). Man can reach the highest rates of pleasure following his intellect.

Justice, as Aristotle calls it, is a "complete virtue". It is the precondition of all value, the requirement for any kind of humanity (Nicomachean Ethics). It cannot replace happiness, but there can be no happiness without it (Comte - Spanvil, 2003).

In the argument (10.7) [of Nicomachean Ethics] that the life of study is the best life, Aristotle stresses that finest ethical virtues "require trouble, aim at some [further] end, and are choice-worthy for something other than themselves." (1177b 18-20) These virtues are necessary in light of the human condition, and the person, who lives the life of study, will choose to do actions that accord with virtue, whenever he has to deal with other people (1178b5-7).

Aristotle argues that happiness, function and morality are closely connected and virtue is dependent of all of them. Happiness is the highest of all practical goods.

Aristotle would have agreed that happiness could not be helped by philosophy in such an environment because people would philosophize themselves.

Aristotle says that sound ethical thinking should be focused on "eudaimonia", which we might translate as flourishing', "well-being", or "happiness". Yet, Aristotle's 'eudaimonia' signifies something which people can achieve simply by drawing on their natural, human resources (Davies, 2003).

Aristotle in "Nicomachean Ethics" believes that we always choose happiness for itself and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure. reason, and every excellence we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that through them we shall be happy. On the other hand, no one chooses happiness for the sake of this, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness then, is something complete and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.

Aristotle in the above-mentioned book states that excellent activities or their opposites arc what determine happiness or the reverse. That may be the reason why he is of the opinion that a happy man will be happy throughout his life; for always, or by preference to everything else, he will bear the chances of life most nobly and altogether decorously if he is 'truly good' and 'foursquare beyond reproach'. Aristotle believes that if happiness is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence; and this will be that of the best thing in us. Whether it is intellect or something else that is this element which is through to be our natural ruler and guide and to take through of things noble and divine, whether it is itself also divine or only the most divine element happiness. Since the intellect is the best thing in us, and the objects of intellect are the best of knowledge objects, the activity of wisdom is admittedly the pleasantest of excellent activities, and it is to be expected that those who know will pass their time more pleasantly than those who inquire. The life according to intellect is best and most pleasant. This life therefore is also the happiest. Happiness extends, just so for as contemplation does, and those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy, not accidentally, but in virtue of the contemplation; for this is in itself precious. Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation. Thus, Aristotle concludes that we must not think that the man who is to be happy will need many things or great things, merely because he can not be blessed without external goods; for self-sufficiency and action do not depend on excess, and we can do noble acts without ruling earth and sea; for even with moderate advantages one can act excellently.

Epicurus learned to take his pleasures as they came: when they are natural, satisfying them is as easy as attending the body's needs. What is simpler than quenching a thirst? What is easier -except in cases of extreme poverty- than satisfying the hunger for food or sex? What is more limited -unfortunately so- than our natural, necessary desires (Epicurus, letters to Menoeceus; quoted from Comte - Sponvil, 2003).

Epicurus was no epicurean glutton or wanton consumerist, but an advocate of "friends, freedom and thought" as the path to happiness.

How should we be happy since we were dissatisfied, and how should we be satisfied since our desires are limitless? What a joy it is to eat when one is hungry! What happiness it is to be no longer hungry after eating! And what freedom it is to have nature as one's only master! Temperance is a means to independence, and independence a means to happiness. Being temperate is being able to content oneself with a little; the little is not what is important: that which matters is the ability and the Contentment. The limitedness of desire, which condemns us to neediness, dissatisfaction, or unhappiness, is a disease of the imagination. (Comte - Sponvil, 2003).

According to Epicurus, one of the tasks of philosophy is saving us the incorrect designs for happiness. He himself had not a large house. His food was simple. He drunk water and not wine. These were the interests of a man who considered "pleasure" as the goal of life. He did not want to beguile anyone. His dependence, attachment and interest on pleasure was more than that his accusers to sensuality could even imagine. He, after an intellectual analysis, realized what made the life enjoyable. Epicurus believed that the necessary elements of pleasure, though mysterious, were not too expensive. He considered friendship, freedom and thinking as the main elements of pleasure and happiness. He believed that it was unlikely and improbable that wealth makes anyone unlucky and disastrous, but he thought that if we have money but be deprived of the bounties of friends,

freedom and analyzed life, we will never be really happy, but if we have these three bounties, but not possess money, we will never be unlucky. Epicurus divided our needs into three categories: some needs are natural and necessary, some are natural but not necessary, and some others are neither natural nor necessary. According to this, happiness is dependent upon some complex psychological affairs and is almost free from material affairs. We can conclude from his opinions that a little (or a necessary) money might be effective on man's happiness, but this happiness would not be increased with increasing money. The more money will not deprive us of the happiness, but the rate of our happiness will not be increased as compared with the happiness of the low-income persons. According to Epicurus, when we remove the pains from the needs, simple dishes will have the same pleasure as the sumptuous tables. We will not be happy in expensive cars without good friends, in villas without freedom, in silk coverlets but with a great anxiety that debars sleeping. Happiness will be greatly low as long as the immaterial needs are not satisfied. Epicurus believed that nothing could satisfy the one, who is not satisfied with a little, and possessing the most wealth cannot remove the spirit anxiety and it will not lead to a considerable happiness. It is impossible that our happiness is dependent on those needs that are satisfied with the expensive things (De Batton, 1969).

Cicero reminds of seeking knowledge respectfully, and believes that no vocation is as sweet as seeking knowledge. It equips us with the good and happy instruments. It teaches us how to spend out lives satisfactorily.

Lucretius had the same opinion as Epicurus. He helped us to realize the feeling of the pleasure of cheap things. According to him, man falls a victim to the abundant and unfruitful pains that he is suffering because of his inability in understanding the limit and border of acquiring the wealth and also in his inability in breeding the original pleasures. Arts can help this orientation be amended.

Augustine says that the reward of virtue will be God Himself, Who gives virtue, and Who has promised Himself to us, than Whom nothing is better or greater... God will be the end of our desires. He will be seen without end, loved without stint, praised without weariness (city of God, XXII.30). This is a description of the best state experienced by a person, or something analogous to it, extended without limit, not a combination or structure of all good activities and the like (White, 2006).

Augustine makes the connection between happiness and the good explicit: "Those who are happy, who also ought to be good, are not happy because they desire to live happily, which even evil men desire, but rather because they will to live rightly- which evil men do not". For Augustine, happiness cannot be attained, nor is it merited, by evildoers (Noddings, 2006).

Augustine believes that in the inner light of Truth, in virtue of which the so-called inner man is illuminated and rejoices. He thinks that we all do - and ought to - pursue happiness, which he equates with seeking to experience joy. As he sees it, all humans aspire to be happy. For Augustine, the happy life consists of joy grounded in and caused by God, but he is well aware that many people are mistaken about where to find happiness. They do not want to find in God their source of joy. Rut his view was that the happy life is joy based on the truth, a joy grounded in God who is the truth. Augustine begins his 'confessions' by addressing God, telling Him that "our heart is restless until it rests in You" (Quinn; quoted in Rorty, 1998)

Thomas Aquinas writes that 'people are perfected by virtue towards those actions by which they are directed towards happiness'. Yet, he adds, human happiness is twofold: 'one depends on the human nature and this is something that people can achieve through their own resources [while] the other is a happiness surpassing human nature, which people can arrive only by power of God, by a kind of participation in divinity'. And this participation, Acquinas argues, can be brought about only by God. 'Because such happiness goes beyond what can be produced by human nature', He says. 'People cannot arrive at it by virtue of what they naturally are; they have to receive from God that by which they may be led to supernatural happiness (St la tae, 62,1). Or, as Aquinas immediately goes on to say, they need the logical virtues and not just the cardinal ones. For him, the true good for people is not "eudaimonia" but beatitude, which he takes to be human flourishing, wellbeing, or happiness in union with God (Cf. ST Ia2ae, 3,8) (quoted from Davies, 2003).

There were some developments with plenty of significance for other philosophical issues besides the ones raised by quantitative hedonism. One of the most interesting of these was Aquinas' effort to evolve a view of pleasure that would combine important Aristotelian ideas about it with his Christian doctrines. This effort involved, in particular, locating the notion of the beatific vision that is identified as the supreme happiness. But Aquinas did not identify the basis of this happiness as pleasure. Rather, he maintained that we love God proper se, because of Himself or what He is (White, 2006).

But, Montaigne rejects severely the superficial knowledge seeking, because most of those who seek knowledge superficially are strongly unhappy. Montaigne was of the opinion that only those things deserve for learning that causes us to acquire a better feeling. So there may be a person who has read hundreds of books regarding philosophy but not to have the happiness of those ones who have heard nothing regarding philosophy. Montaigne considered, as wisdom. them more comprehensive and more valuable knowledge, all things that can help mankind to live happily and in harmony with moral principles (De Botton, 1969).

From the viewpoint of Spinoza, pleasure may be produced by a transition from a lesser to a greater state of perfection. Pain may be produced by a transition from a greater to a lesser state of perfection. For Spinoza, perfection is the same as reality (II, Def. VI). The more perfect a thing is. the more real it is. Inasmuch as God is absolutely perfect, God is also absolutely real. God is infinitely perfect and infinitely real. Spinoza argues that knowledge of good and evil arises from the awareness of what causes pleasure and pain. The greatest good of mind and its greatest virtue is to know God (Iv, prop. XXVIII). If we act according to reason, then we desire only what is good. If we act according to reason, then we try to promote what is good not only for ourselves but for others.

Spinoza admits that all emotions may not necessarily conflict with reason. Emotions, which agree with reason, may cause pleasure, while emotions, which do not agree with reason, may cause pain. Inability to control the emotions may cause pain (Wild, 1930).

Spinoza interpreted joy as what follows that passion, the passion by which the mind passes to a greater perfection, and by sadness, that passion by which it passes to a lesser perfection. The effect of joy, which is related to the mind and body at once, he called pleasure or cheerfulness, and that of sadness he called pain or melancholy.

Spinoza believed that virtue itself and the service of God are happiness itself and the greatest virtue (Curley, 1996).

According to Spinoza; since we cannot control the objects that we tend to value and that we allow to influence our well-being, we ought, instead, to try to control our evaluations themselves and thereby minimize the sway that external objects and the passions have over us. We can never eliminate the passive effects entirely. We are essentially a part of nature, and can never fully remove ourselves from the causal series that link us to external things. But we can, ultimately, counteract the passions, control them, and achieve a certain degree of relief from their control. The path to restraining and moderating the effects is followed through virtue. All beings naturally seek their own advantage - to preserve their own being - and it is right for them to do so.

This is what virtue consists in. Since we are thinking beings, endowed with intelligence and reason, so that which is to our greatest advantage is knowledge. Our virtue, therefore, consists in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of adequate ideas. But ultimately, we strive for knowledge of God. Spinoza believes that we do not have an absolute power to adapt things outside us to our use.

Nevertheless, we shall bear calmly those things that happen to us contrary to what the principle of our advantage demands, if we are conscious that we have done our duty, that the power we have could not have extended itself to the point where we could have avoided those things and that we are a part of the whole of nature, whose order we follow. If we understand this clearly and distinctly, that part of us which is defined by understanding, that is the better part of us, will be entirely satisfied with this, and will strive to be preserved in that satisfaction. For insofar as we understand, we can intend nothing except what is necessary, nor absolutely by being satisfied with anything except what is true. (IV, Appendix).

The fact that love is without want makes it all the stronger, all the lighter, and, as Spinoza would have said, all the more active (Ethics, p. 58 and p. 59, with dem. and school. Also V, p. 40). This lightness has a name, and that name is joy. It has proof, as well, and that proof is the happiness of lovers; I love you. I am joyful that you exist.

There cannot be any happiness without love. If love is a joy accompanied by the idea of an external cause, if all love therefore is in its essence joyful, the converse is also true: all joy has a cause (as dose everything that exists) and therefore all joy is loving. Love is transparent joy, its light, its known and acknowledged truth. This is Spinoza's secret and the secret of wisdom and happiness: love exists only as joy and there is no joy other than love (Comte- Sponvil, 2003).

Spinoza argues that the mind's intellectual love of God is our understanding of the universe, our virtue, our happiness, our well-being and our "salvation". Spinoza's "free person" is one who bears the gifts and loses of fortune with equanimity, does only those things that he believes to be "the most important in life", takes care of the well-being of others, and is not anxious about death (Nadler, 2005). In brief, Spinoza thinks that one pursues the good because of the benefit it brings to oneself (Miller, 2005).

Spinoza believes that if we fall in love with the fleeting things and those things not all humans can acquire an equal amount of them, we will engage in jealous, fear and rancor. Falling in love with eternal things makes man's spirit and soul happy and makes them free from all kinds of grief. Spinoza also believed that it would be harmful if man wants wealth, money, power and physical pleasures for themselves, whereas man should consider them as a tool and instrument.

Spinoza said that happiness is not something that man waits for reaching it in the other world, but he should seek and reach it in this world.

Spinoza believed that the highest happiness is the identification of that unity that joins man's spirit with the total nature, and utilizing of this identification along with other humans. The highest happiness is acquired whenever ( 66 ) philosophical insight exists in imagination of that thing which is eternal (Yaspers, 1996).

Rousseau says that if man wishes to be happy, he should apply his free will to the extent of his ability. He believes that the happiness of others will increase our happiness. It is not for a personal profit that all people help the general happiness, because there are some individuals that prefer to be slain in the way of their religions or countries. These people are looking for a spiritual happiness that they offer good sacrifices for the sake of obtaining it (Rousseau, 2001).

Rousseau introduces patience, endurance, surrender, consent and perfect justice as the only properties that man will take with him from this world, because it is by these that humans can perfect and complete themselves day by day without suffering from the least fear from death to reach themselves to the peak of perfection and happiness (Alavi, 2005).

Rousseau says that it is up to us to make the others participate in our pleasures if we want to have more rates of pleasure. If man is accustomed to judge everything only from his own point of view, he will surely justify mistakenly the worst actions. That is the reason why God is a necessary fact for the world. God's grace to us is reinforced by the moral effort we make. This is a worthy of praise effort, because our soul and spirit is captive of senses and body, and cutting this chain is very difficult. Spiritual pleasure is obtained whenever man becomes successful in such an effort. On the other hand, Rousseau believes that we should formulate human inclinations according to man's spiritual and physical circumstances if we want to do the best thing for man's happiness. Rousseau says that if man wants to experience abundant and great virtues, he should also experience pains and hardships, that this fact is in consistent with man's nature (Claydon, quoted from Alavi, 2005).

A baby should become familiar with the small sorrows if lie wants to understand the great bounties and happiness. The baby nurtured in affluence and easy life will never enjoy kindness, cooperation and happiness (Rousseau. 2001). If the body is in too security, the spirit will be corrupted.

In Rousseau's society, people are less and less likely to value their own thoughts and so less likely to achieve happiness.

Kant says that each person enacts laws for his happiness according to his understanding, imagination and senses powers, but a confirmable happiness is along with "deserving". An action is correct practically provided that action maximizes the humans' happiness, and an action is correct intellectually provided that one's intention is maximizing the humans' happiness.

From the viewpoint of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), happiness is the natural reward for virtuous behavior; therefore, behaving morally should lead to happiness.

However, this appears never actually to happen. There must, therefore, be something else that leads people to behave morally. The achievement of the highest Good in the world is the necessary object of a will determined by the moral law which commands us to make the highest possible good in a world the final object of all our conduct, and there must, therefore, be a reward for moral behavior in the next world. Because happiness clearly does not come about in this life for the majority, there must be a life beyond death in which the reward comes (Dowar, 2002).

Happiness is associated especially with the classical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The utilitarianism assert that happiness is, as a matter of fact, the ultimate aim at which all human actions are directed and that it is therefore the ultimate standard by which all human actions are directed and that it is therefore the ultimate standard by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of actions. 'Actions are right', says Mill. 'in proportion as they tend to promote happiness'- that is to say, 'the general happiness,' the happiness of ail concerned. For Bentham the identity of 'happiness' and 'pleasure' is quite straightforward. An action's tendency to promote happiness is determined simply by adding up the amounts of pain, which it will produce. It is a matter solely of quantitative factors such as the intensity and duration of the pleasurable and painful feelings (Handerich, 2005).

Following Bentham, John Stuart Mill goes on to equate happiness with 'pleasure and absence of pain'. Mill acknowledges that happiness depends not only on the quantity but also on the quality of pleasures. Human beings, because of the distinctively human capacities they possess, require more to make them happy than the accumulation of pleasurable sensations. They are made happy not by lower pleasures' but by the 'higher pleasures'; 'the pleasures of intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the more sentiments. Mill departs still further from the purely quantitative notion of happiness when he recognizes that it is not just a sum of unrelated experiences but an ordered whole. To say that human beings aim at happiness is not to deny that they pursue more specific goals such as knowledge or artistic and cultural activity or moral goodness, and that they pursue these things for their own sake. These are some of the 'ingredients' which go to make up a life of happiness (Handerich, 2005).

Hegel believes that humans should seek for the general and total pleasure which is not obtained through the satisfying of the partial motives. Hegel considers this total pleasure and satisfaction as happiness. Human beings in the highest position of their perfection incline to happiness and this inclination is impersonal. This natural and innate inclination is free from corruption. Schopenhauer said that life is full of pains and grief, the more we try to enjoy it, the more we will become its slaves and captives (De Batton, 1969).

Nietzsche believed that any worthwhile achievement in life come from the experience of the overcoming of hardship.

He believed that those who want to be satisfied should welcome every hardship in the life.

He wished grief, sorrow and illness for the ones whom he loved. He was looking for happiness but he was of the opinion that one could not achieve happiness without pains and hardship. He believed that if you want to utilize the maximum of pleasure, you should surely taste the maximum of displeasure (De Batton, 1969).