“Call no man happy until he is dead.”
Simon Critchley, in action
Philosopher Simon Critchley writes a thought-provoking reflection on happiness on the “Happy Days” blog on nytimes.com. The ancient Greek proverb above is his launching point into thinking about happiness, death, and the prospect of an afterlife.
In short, Critchley explicates the proverb to talk about “my” happiness as something centered in others, in the lives of those outside me, and that “my” happiness cannot be considered as a whole until after I’m dead-and-gone. Thus, we can’t really consider our own happiness without in some way thinking about our own afterlife. An excerpt:
But why should we assume that the question of the afterlife must always be answered with reference to me? Isn’t that just a teensy bit selfish? What is so important about my afterlife? Why can’t I believe in the afterlife of others without believing in my own?
A skeptic might object that I am simply dodging the question. Of course, they might say, the question of the afterlife is about your afterlife. So, does it go on or not, this series of disconnected events that we call existence?
The only really philosophical reply I can give is, “I don’t know.”
Critchley’s ideas of centering “my” happiness (and “my” afterlife) in the lives of others have profound theological implications. Critchley himself is an atheist, which leads him to a Socratic conclusion. As for me, I can’t really go down that road without getting neck-deep into Christian convictions about christology (who is Christ?), anthropology (who am I?), and the Trinity (who is God?).
So, I’ll just leave Critchley’s questions on the table, where we can sit around and reflect on them with each other. If Critchley’s right, perhaps we can even add to each other’s happiness.
Travis Scholl, 35, is managing editor of theological publications at Concordia Seminary. A graduate of Yale Divinity School (MDiv), he is an ordained Lutheran minister. Despite some time away, he and his wife are native St. Louisans, as is the child they are now raising. 
If you have an afterlife are you dead? How will I know about the afterlife of others if I don’t have one too? How could an afterlife dedicated to God be selfish?
I would be happier in this pre-afterlife if I were more comfortable but I am happy enough for now. Obviously, this post raises more questions than it answers. Who does know about afterlife?
This kind of blog is somewhat frustrating to me, only because philosophers don’t answer questions, they just ask them. They might frame them in different contexts, but in the end they are purposefully trying to be vague.
My first thought reading this was that God is going to ask me about what I did, how I treated others, how I lived my life. I have no control over the actions of others and I do not judge others. That is up to God. In a way, it does not surprise me that an athiest would ask the questions Travis writes about concerning others, because the faithless don’t work towards a higher goal. And believing in someone else’s after-life when you yourself don’t believe is a blatant contradiction that has no resolution. (Of course I am a student of the scientific method and logic, not philosophy, so I would naturally find his comments nonsensical).
I realize that is not all Critchley is talking about. To echo davel somewhat, how we rate happiness for our whole life is immaterial at the moment, because we aren’t there yet (using Critchley’s definition). My “whole happiness” is ever present because my whole life is ever present. It continues to get longer each second, and happiness might change, but it can still be rated no matter where I am in my journey.
(I still find the topic of this blog confusing I should note, and am not sure what direction it was really intended…)
Travis,
Very thought provoking. There is a sufi saying ‘to become free one has to die before you die’. It was interesting to note how many ‘I’s/’my’s are there in the blog as well as the comments from davel and Tim. The ‘I’ in us gets really confused by this question. The problem (and really one of the main reasons we are ‘here’) is to figure out the ‘I’ and questions that provoke confusion of the ‘I’ are precisely the ones that will help us peel away the layers to get to the kernel of ‘I’ that will (hopefully) outlast this bodily existence.
Yes, these kinds of philosophical musings are difficult to respond to. To bring it back to a Judeo-Christian perspective, I’d suggest considering my favorite Biblical text: Micah 6:8 reads, “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you; But to do justice, to love kindness,; And to walk humbly with your God?”
The greatest epitaph I can think of, today, is this: how DID “I” fulfill those few simple words?
We can get so tied up in trying to achieve the next life, that we are of no use here, and yet, it’s HERE that our work lies. This text suggests that if I do justice, love kindness, and walk with humility then I won’t have to worry too much about the next life. And that’s good enough for me.
I struggle with philosophical inquries that do not focus. So many considerations designed to heighten chaos and a sense of whelm. It occurrs for me as a back door to awe and possibility.
Just one. We must rely on others for how we occurr in the world, if we care.
Okay another, the afterlife is beyond understanding.
Maybe it should be the “afterlifeasweknewit,” or better yet, just “after,” maybe “afterend,” or “oops, I didn’t mean to do that.”
The very phrase does not acknowledge possibility. Not very philisophical, if you ask me.
Atheism is a philosophical challenge in its position as disbelief. In that the belief can not be proven, neither can the disbelief. It has more integrity to declare that you have not chosen to believe, rather than to stake your own position (disbelief) on another’s choice (belief). You are using the same premise that you deny. Not all things work both ways.
Defining yourself as an atheist on the disbelief of another’s belief may not lead to glory.
I think it is powerful to accept everybody’s path as real. There is integrity in taking people at their word.
Travis,
Thanks for the flashback to my college Philosophy class. It didn’t make any sense back then, either.
Others are a part of our life. But the fact remains that we are the owners of our own happiness. If things or persons outside ourselves are needed to make one happy that person really is not happy just occupied. One needs to be happy in their own skin, using things or others for happiness leaves one dependent not liberated. True liberty is happiness. Of course a person seeks pleasure and comfort but his or her happiness is not contingent on such objects. Using a person as an object is an attempt to oppress them. Having relationships where all or both parties are independent can induce happiness but even that is a form of dependency. Being needy is not being happy or compatible. Just being with a person because you want to is good enough not because they fulfill some need of yours. Having a relationship for material purposes does not induce happiness just comfort. I offer that a person does not need an afterlife to be happy or others but can find happiness in a tree, a mountain, or the sky.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m in the process of reading Calvin’s “Institutes” over the course of this year, and the last week or so’s readings speak to this question quite clearly.
First, Calvin is unequivocal in his belief that it is in service to others that we find our truest happiness and joy. I have found this to be true, personally, as well. Want to truly experience the goodness of God? Get out there and serve those less fortunate than yourself.
Second, Calvin reminds us that everything of this world is transitory and vanity. While it is perfectly ok to enjoy the pleasant things of this life, our focus needs to be on the life to come. He takes a very Hobbesian attitude: life is nasty, brutish, and short, this life is full of pain and tragedy and disaster and suffering. By contrast, the life to come is none of those things, and we endure the first and look forward to the second.
My comment would be that this whole musing really points out the spiritual emptiness of our mass culture. We surround ourselves with “stuff”, aspire to live behind a gate to keep us safe, and make every effort to concern ourselves not at all with those down the street or around the corner who are not like us. My view is that if I want true happiness, then I need to do a much better job of engaging with that part of society, and give of myself in service to them.