The article would have benefited from some clarity about the different meanings of happiness: Frankl's, which isn't discussed at all, and the definition used i

The article would have benefited from some clarity about the different meanings of happiness: Frankl's, which isn't discussed at all, and the definition used in the psychological research cited by the article. I think the author wrote a short article about a very provocative point raised in psychological research, dressed it up by bookending it with references to Frankl, and then completely ignored the contradictions and interesting questions raised by juxtaposing the two. I mean, look at the transition from the Frankl intro to the meat of the article. First, the discussion of Frankl seems to imply that happiness depends on meaning. Quite possibly -- depending on the definition of happiness. "Research" is invoked to support Frankl: "having purpose and meaning in life increases overall well-being and life satisfaction" and so on. Then this non-sequitur: "It is the very pursuit of happiness," Frankl knew, "that thwarts happiness." --- This is why some researchers are cautioning against the pursuit of mere happiness. ... followed by a discussion of how meaning and happiness are different and can be achieved independently. The article jumps from Frankl's point, which is that happiness cannot be pursued because it must "ensue" from meaning, to a very different point, which is that happiness can be achieved without meaning, and this is a socially harmful thing because it is associated with selfish feelings and behaviors! They're completely different ideas going in completely different directions, and the article just staples them together, with Frankl being the piece incongruously tacked on. However, at the heart of the article is a psychological study that tackles a challenging question that goes back at least to Socrates' discussion of the Ring of Gyges. It is a common feature of many Greek schools of philosophy that they start from the assumption that the purpose of life is to be happy and conclude that happiness requires living (roughly) a moral life. This is a convenient but dubious coincidence: we may not be convinced, but we dearly wish it to be true. Now we have psychologists apparently warning that scientific evidence is accumulating against this cherished link between "happiness" and virtuous, socially constructive living. This is a fascinating point. It's a scientific challenge to what you might call a very common "religious" belief that is a core belief of many non-religious people as well. The Greek philosophers, and many people today whom we might call progressives or liberals, believe that to make people good, you only have to educate them[1]. Understanding will compel them to act virtuously, even if their only concern is their own happiness. The belief that people who properly understand themselves will be good, compassionate people continues to be widespread today, bolstered by research into our empathic, social nature. Against this is the conservative view of people as innately morally flawed beings, driven by selfish desires, socially redeemable only through order and punishment, morally redeemable only through divine grace. The conservative view is bolstered by the evolutionary reasoning, which points out that genetic self-interest is only partially and accidentally congruent with ordinary notions of morality. Anyway, I'm off to read the new study that prompted the article[2], and I can at least appreciate the article for surfacing this study, linking to it, and prompting me to think about these things again. [1] Buddhists can be included in this group, and I'm sure there are many others I've left out. [2] http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/aaker/pages/documents/SomeKeyDifferencesHappyLifeMeaningfulLife_2012.pdf http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/aaker/pages/documents/SomeKe...