Happiness and careers

Last night I had a conversation with a friend about the nature of work and our careers. For context, I'm a graduate student entering my fifth year and hoping to finish in six; he's three years older than I am and working as a programmer for a web development company. Careers are important parts of the lives of those of us in our mid-to-late twenties since we are working so hard to establish them. The popular thought is that without a proper career, we can not find happiness later in life. This happiness comes from the attainment of wealth, family, and the approval of our friends and family for having achieved these things. This, at least, is my interpretation of the general consensus of my generation.

My observation is that, from this viewpoint, the happiness obtained by a career is from things external to ourselves. Wealth, a family, and social recognition are all independent of our own minds. But I think people often fail to realize the importance of the internal rewards earned through their careers. For example, one can find happiness knowing that their job helps others (teachers, doctors) or is aesthetically pleasing (artists, mathematicians). This is evident by the number of people willing to teach and the "starving artists" that frequent coffee shops and small venues the world over.

Many of my close friends are struggling to find what exactly they value more: internal or external rewards for their hard work. Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive, but the optimal ratio of the amount of the one to the other-the one that provides the greatest degree of happiness-can vary drastically depending upon the individual. Unfortunately, failing to recognize which of the two any of my friends value more can keep them from finding contentment.

A simple recognition of one's own values is not enough to find happiness with a career, though it certainly is an important first step. This observation (that self-understanding is not sufficient) underscores the importance of acting on one's desires. However, it takes courage to change careers (or even jobs within the same field), especially considering that one might suffer a severe cut in pay or the uncertainty in reestablishing oneself in a new workplace. An additional difficulty with changing jobs is that people may place the values of others above their own in deciding upon their career path. A society might greatly value wealth, so a person may lock themselves into a high-paying job, despite being unhappy, because it's what others think is important. In this case, I believe that the individual's values should trump those of others, though this too takes a certain degree of courage and sense of self.

To summarize, the point of a career is to find an optimum degree of contentment. This comes in the form of compensation, which includes both external and internal rewards. Though not mutually exclusive, people tend to favor one type of reward over the other. Failure to recognize what one wants out of their career often leads to boredom and discontent, but so too does failing to change careers because of prejudices based upon what career success means. The first step in finding happiness is to establish one's values, then act accordingly. This will take courage, but many things in life that are worthwhile do.

After thought:  I didn't address it, but some people may also find difficulty pursuing their chosen career field, which adds another degree of complexity to my analysis. For example, women may face barriers in many fields dominated by men. Consideration of these factors might change my conclusions, but I think that for the most part they apply in general.

I am not alone

It really is quite amazing when you stumble upon a quote from a historical figure that so precisely reflects your state of mind that it gives you a slight chill when you first read it. Such was my reaction upon reading a quote from Kierkegaard on Wikipedia's entry on existentialism:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added

I knew there had to be a reason that I kept notes

In addition to writing in two blogs I keep a personal journal to track the evolution of my thoughts. While reading an entry from a year ago, I came across a quote from a short blog post from James Garvey at Talking Philosophy Magazine. The theme of this post has dominated my thought lately, having been fueled by a discussion with my roommate about whether developing a personal philosophy as a goal is selfish.

I think Garvey's anecdotal lesson is something of a warning to thinkers. A solution is only valuable if it solves a problem, and problems are of relative importance to people. Therefore, it may just be foolish to presume I'm pursuing a noble and universal truth.

Coming to grips with this fact may clear up a lot of questions about the pursuit of happiness that I've been pondering about as well. However, the caffeine is wearing off now and I'm afraid my intellectual energies need to be put on hold so I can finish off the pile of Netflix movies at our house.

The quote from Garvey:

It pushes me again to the thought that the headlines are all wrong.  Philosophy isn’t the love of wisdom or the pursuit of truth; it’s nearer an effort to think through your own conception of things, make things clearer for yourself, render coherent your own outlook.  In stockpiling all your premises and conclusions, the only person you will ever convince is yourself.  And that’s if you’re lucky.

Where does happiness fall within a world view?

In my first post I concluded with a paragraph that began as follows:

The grander purpose [of this blog] is that I wish to create my own philosophy upon which I can base my actions, thoughts, and conclusions. I've come to believe that people give meaning to their own lives and for me it is in analyzing and placing this world in a context with which I can admire its beauty and complexity. But this can only be done once I wrestle from it the essential facts and shape them into some meaningful form, as humans are meant to do.

The other night while reading in a coffee shop I realized that this statement is a bit naive. I think that the statement is in general true; I believe that it is worth our while to take some control of the factors that influence our lives, such as our relationships to others and our general outlook, rather than play the part of the passive observer. There's a certain nobility to reducing life to its basis. Doing so provides us the intellectual materials that are required to place us in the position to be masters of our own existence. However, a singular intellectual pursuit of translating our realities into a coherent framework leaves little room for spontaneous joy. This is because of the enormous complexity of reality--it may simply be too much for any individual to fully understand. And the rejection of happiness for a synthetic, mindful pursuit smacks a bit too much of piousness for my own taste.

So how can happiness fit into one's world view, especially one whose aim is to critically examine every piece of information that it is presented? If I were to fully understand my life through contemplation, would I be happy? If I gave up entirely upon philosophy to focus my energies on more tangible sources of enjoyment such as my friends and going out every night, would this provide me with contentment? My opinion is that neither extreme can give me the most satisfaction. As usual, a balance between the two seems to be the best option. But these concerns raise more fundamental and interesting questions.

Is happiness an end to be achieved by the meaning and goals we set for ourselves, or does the pursuit of these goals fill us with contentment, regardless of whether they are achieved? Maybe happiness is obtained independently of how we choose to run our lives, but I doubt it. Furthermore, I know that I find happiness in both the satisfaction of the mind and in the body. Does this mean that there exist two forms of happiness, or are they one in the same?

To be fair to myself, I think I understood that the statement that I began this piece with was naive when I originally wrote it, hence the conclusion:

Intellect was not bestowed upon us to simply reflect on reality; we were meant to transform a piece of it into something that we can claim as our own, even if it be the tiniest fraction of what we know of as existence.

Perhaps we who possess philosophical tendencies should be content with just taming "the tiniest fraction" and cease our metaphysical exertions lest we be consumed by our own minds.

A dynamic value system

During my bike ride this morning I struggled to understand how a philosophy can be built upon a base set of values that are allowed to change.

Let me clarify: I understand many philosophies to be structured in a manner similar to a mathematical theorem. One first states relevant definitions and assumptions, then makes (hopefully) consistent arguments based these assumptions which lead to a conclusion. I believe that values are the analog to assumptions in philosophy.

I've developed a suspicion that this structure is perhaps too rigid to support a world view that can satisfy me. As I age I change my mind on opinions and my general outlook, i.e. my values change. It seems that I've encountered the difficulty of trying to formulate a philosophy grounded in dynamic principles.

I'm also trying to come to grips on why a changing set of values can be preferred to a static one. Perhaps the empirical evidence I gave above--that my opinions change with time--is enough to make this claim.