Go to the Home Page
The greatest of people are not always the happiest of all. Or do they experience unadulterated happiness, the kind that most people never do. Consider some of the great authors – Jane Austen, who, during her lifetime, published under the name ‘A Lady’ and did not receive much literary acclaim and success until after her death. Two of her books were published posthumously. Her books were out of print for twelve years until the copyright for all her books was purchased by another publisher and since then, the reprints of her books are published every year. All through her life, her mother, her sister and she were dependent upon her brothers and except for the short period of boom, the financial condition of her family was far from comfortable. She received only one marriage proposal in her life – from a fat, stammering, clumsy man, which she, rightfully declined. A great mind that originated creations that have been read and acclaimed widely, the woman who’s been cited by many successful authors as their idol, led a lonely life. Eventually, she died of a disease at an early age of 42 and continued writing till the very end. The most tragic part about her life is that she received most of her recognition posthumously. At one point of time in her life, she’d sold the copyright of one of her books to a publisher for 10 Pounds, who didn’t publish the book. She wanted to buy back the copyright so that she could have it published with another author, but could not afford the 10 Pounds. And so her books remained unpublished. But she never gave up writing. I think that’s the essence. Similarly, consider the great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He died early too, alone, suffering from a disease. He was lonely, but what a great thinker. He also received much of his acclaim and recognition posthumously.
This leads me back to the question that I started with. Are all great people as happy as we think they are? And in conjunction, is it preferable to be great or to be happy? Or am I missing an important point when I say that great people are not necessarily the happiest? Maybe the object of their greatness – their creation, it could be a book, a painting, a building, a sculpture, a musical composition, gives them immense pleasure and happiness – the amount of happiness that an average human being experiences over the course of his lifetime – through education, family, marriage, children, career. Maybe the great people, people who have achieved their utmost potential in life are by far happier than the ‘average’ person who goes through the mundane cycle of life and experiences moments of happiness during the course of his journey.
So, if great people are indeed happier, if they experience unbounded happiness by the achievement of their maximum potential during their time on Earth, even though the rest of their lives have been miserable, lonely and full of tragedies and struggle, considering all this, would it be preferable to be a great or ‘average and happy’? Of course, it’s an individual choice and each one of us must decide for himself or herself what he or she wants. And I think, at some point of time, it is a conscious choice that we make. Looking at it rationally, there are three possible scenarios – one, the individual does not possess the capability or the willingness to follow the tough path of greatness so he lives an average life, going through the ups and downs of it. Second – the individual possesses the capability and willingness to follow his dreams and although he faces many difficulties, challenges, let-downs, hurdles and disappointments, he continues down the chosen road – undeterred and determined. It is rare to see somebody like that. The third situation is the most painful – one possesses the capability to achieve, to excel in a chosen field, but somehow not enough motivation to go down the path. He’s held back – maybe by lethargy, by fear of difficulty, by fear of the unknown or simply the other side of him – the other side which is ‘average’ or mediocre, that wants to just live life comfortably, go to parties, marry, have children and live like our parents before us and their parents before them. Sometimes, it may happen that a person with caliber realizes this and suddenly wants to achieve his potential. Sometimes, he does not. He chooses to remain mediocre and mingle easily in the crowd. Don’t a lot of us fall in this category? Dreaming big but being held back for some irrational reason or the other, procrastinating our journey towards greatness by using some excuse or the other. And at the end, this kind of individual is the unhappiest. The first one doesn’t know what greatness is, so has no regrets. The second one achieves it. And the third one - misses it despite being born with the capability. If I may make an analogy, the first one is Peter Keating, the second one is, of course, Howard Roark, and the third one is Gail Wynand.
If asked – what would you want to be: happy or great? I would unequivocally choose to be great rather than happy. I’d be happy living the life of Friedrich Nietzsche if I achieve half of what he did in his life. I’d rather lead a life of struggle, if I know what I’m striving for is worth dedicating my life to. I’d rather want to live that one moment of supreme happiness that the achievement of your aspiration brings to you, than a dull life with a few expected spikes of pseudo-happiness.
Go to the Home Page
It is said that a person's writings are a reflection of the self. If that be true, then I just read an analytical mind enmeshed with a laudatory ability to observe and absorb. Not that I agree with everything that is written (as I shouldn't unless I really feel like) but I cannot deny the point of view which makes Nouveau an engaging experience. Do keep writing and in the meantime, as a contrarion thought to this post, I could think of George Headley, Capt. Vikram Batra, Arthur Ashe, and Ray (the singer) who all lived tough lives, died great and yet were happy, the adversities (some of them, created by their own melancholy) notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteA slightly alternate thought to my last comment (warning - may appear psychobabble). The pursuit of greatness, a higher thought or vision that transcends the imaginative ability of the common mass inevitably brings with it a resistance that may prove to be debilitating. At that time, the incumbent in quest of that vision has to perhaps make a choice - she/he can either be weighed down by the collective resistance imposed on him (just try to improve something in the society and you'll get a billion reasons of how it can't and shouldn't be done), or she/he can remain inspired by the motive of the vision, irrespective of the achievement. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of choice...
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more with the concluding sentence. Life is a matter of choices. The state of one's life at any point of time is a result of one's choices and efforts made in the past. There are no excuses for failure; destiny cannot shape one's life; eventually, the only person who can hinder one's progress is the self.
ReplyDeleteI would believe that all humans strive for happiness. Seldom would one find a person who would prefer to be sorrowful (unless its clinical). However, the greed for power (re-read greatness) makes one tread paths which lead to unwanted destinations. Its interesting if you just replace the word greatness with the word power in your essay, it becomes clearer (atleast to me). What is the attribute of greatness? To be known by everybody? Is that it? Or does greatness imply being able to wield power on others in some manner. I have been reading Noam Chomsky (Understanding Power) recommended by Hatikvah, would suggest you follow up this essay with a reading of the same.
ReplyDeleteHonshu5, it seems to me you've got the tenor of my post utterly wrong. I'd have to pull excerpts from my post to prove my point:
ReplyDelete-"Maybe the great people, people who have achieved their utmost potential in life are by far happier than the ‘average’ person who goes through the mundane cycle of life and experiences moments of happiness during the course of his journey."
When I used the word great or greatness in the post, I referred to people who have achieved their utmost potential in life. To me, greatness is not something which results from other's response to our actions (as is the case with power - "to be known by everybody", "to be able to wield power on others in some manner" in your words). In fact greatness is an attribute of the individual, which originates from the individual as a result of the achievement of his highest potential in life. I think the same applies to happiness, but I'll come to that later. While power to influence the lives/decisions/beliefs of others may come as a result of greatness, it is never the cause of greatness. A person does not become great because he wields power over others (power, which maybe the result of manipulation), but if an individual has achieved greatness, he may be able to inspire others to do the same, hence being able to influence their lives.
-Secondly, the central point in the post is not to answer the question - to be happy or great (I regret the title of the post, if it gives such an impression). I did not intend to suggest that these two are mutually exclusive. I just wished to explore the relationship between the two, for the achievement of happiness is on everyone's agenda ("unless its clinical" - in your words) and greatness on the agenda of a subset of the total population. And although, you and I would never know whether people who are believed to be great (Jane Austen, Fredrich Neitzche etc.) were happy or not, believing that the achievement of both is possible in one lifetime is a reassuring thought in itself.
(I would add the book by Noam Chomsky in my to-read books. In the meanwhile, I suggest you deliberate on the difference between greatness and power, and let me know your views in this regard. All the same, it's a pleasure to know that somebody has put considerable thought into my post. I appreciate.)
Humans are quite a complicated lot! Greatness, by your definition, may need to be dissected into manageable parts. To achieve the utmost potential in life is to me, quite undefinable. We could take Austen's example, where she wrote some of her best works till her death. But it did not give her any acclaim (meaning, appreciation by others). Yet, I'm quite sure that she achieved her utmost in literary potential. Had she stopped writing, she would have lost the greatness (by the definition we are using). However, her strife was manifold: poverty, family, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to the question of dissecting greatness. A person may be a successful professional, but does that make him or her a successful family person? Or vice versa? Hence, humans are complicated in the sense that their goals are multiple, varied and sometimes conflicting. To achieve greatness in the definition above, or to be able to attribute it to someone would be quite difficult. I completely agree with the second part of your post relating the to 3 kinds of people.
But if the question is that of relation between happiness & greatness, I have still not managed to unravel any answers.
Sandy, for once, I would have to agree with one of your viewpoints. :) But let me go sequentially through your comment.
ReplyDelete-About Austen, you and I can assume she achieved her utmost potential in life (in the field of writing). The achievement of utmost potential by an individual, according to me, has an implicit consequence - it is irreversible, just like all our other accomplishments. If an author or a musician (who has achieved greatness, as defined here) quits doing what he/she does best (for medical reasons or any other reason), it does not imply that he/she has lost the greatness.
-Now your point that I agree with : Greatness can be achieved in multiple fields - personal and professional (which can further be split into specifics). However, the definition of greatness is applicable to the chosen field. An individual, who has achieved greatness - say in the literary field - is considered great, irrespective of the field. Similarly, a soldier, who has achieved greatness on the battleground, is considered to be great.
People have varying goals and objectives in life. What is important is to achieve greatness in what matters the most to you.
firstly let me say this was a good read.. couldn't help but went thru the comments also.
ReplyDelete@ sandy/honshu5: as far as i could absorb wat kanika expressed (or seemed to) was purely an open view-point - she jus touched a topic/choice that mankind has to make at multiple stages in life + threw in some examples + related her view on that - that's it.
However, wat I (and prolly u) were looking for is a conclusion, a gist to this dilemma... which leads to the difference in thoughts.
I think coming to the elementary level it all depends on how one describes "greatness" or "happiness" and there was no "frame of reference" mentioned for wat these words mean in the write-up.
Greatness can not only be power and Happiness can not only be money.
@ Kanika : ur right as the "perception" of these two words is and will be different for everyone and that will decide the path they choose in life.
n guess people who speak less think more ;) must say u write well - never knew it till karan posted this link at his blog - keep it up.
intense hunger + intense humbleness + intense focus + intense hope + good health + unique talent + luck = "greatness" AND happiness averaged over time
ReplyDeleteis there really more to the equation?
warren buffet. benjamin franklin. socrates. radke. beatles. all of these greats averaged both...though i agree that "greatness" is quite a subjective term. actually, both greatness and happiness are as gray as a strange closet full of clothes with no light.
thanks for provoking these thoughts...cheers!