# Why does happiness always elude us?

Юрий Михайлович Низовцев

Surprisingly, in all known times, sages of various kinds tried to define or at least explain that what in real life could not appear in any way, calling this abstraction by happiness, and still continuing this fruitless occupation, to which the people are listening without any doubt not only out of stupidity, but also because they always wants better than they have at themselves, thereby moving the entire civilization forward, but upsetting until own death by the lack of the advent of happiness, however, consoling themselves with the existence of paradise, inasmuch somewhere must be happiness - let even behind the coffin.

Happiness was so possible, so close ...

There is no happiness in the world

but there is serenity and will ...

A. S. Pushkin


The key for happiness overly jams at rotation.

The successful person is unhappy exactly for the reason that without problems gets the required.

Unhappy are everybody who are caught like flies into the cobweb of routine.

Actually instead of paradise and hell the hostel is provided to us.

If you have everything, then you are already a corpse - for thou, as and the corpse, already do not need anything.

Inasmuch opposites converge, the use of pleasant always finds trouble.

Sufferings are different from experiences in the fact that they can be not withstood.

If the person suddenly discovers the true meaning of life - he will not believe in it.

The main difficulty of mankind consists in lack of understanding of that why it in general is necessary.

In our time any good person should be shoot out of pity.

The sick tooth undoubtedly indicates the impossibility of harmony.

Heavy suffering is happened, generally owing to the transferred pleasures.

The person always wants everything were better for him, than what he yet has, without special bases.

It's good when isn't worse yet, and it is bad when worse nowhere.

The miseries of our life provides a forward movement.

Permanently happy is only an idiot slobbering.

Happiness is foretaste of execution of treasured desire disappearing with execution.

Is there happiness in life?

Unfortunately, while it is authentically known only that in life there are misfortunes.

Why does time for happy life doesn't come?

Because somebody does not watch of hours, others have no watch, and all else are just waiting own hour.

Complete harmony denies the presence of alive.

Beauty is what impossible ascribe for self.

Opportunity is more pleasant than reality, but in it is impossible to linger.

New thoughts come to mind not to millions, but units because to millions there is no deed to them.

Adaptability turns the person into an animal, and an animal, on the contrary, draw closer to the person.

Losses or winnings are important only in that they make you think.

Any perpetrated doesn't reach perfection.

Looking at the property which was being accumulated up by toil, the owner once understands all its needlessness.

If a person tries to live according to the best in him, then this does not agree with his other efforts - to live better.

People are similar at commission of the same nonsenses, which are differed only quantitatively.

Acquisition of wellbeing is loss of time.

The mind is always afraid of desires because of their spontaneity.

Each person dreams to live how follows, without knowing precisely in what direction to follow.


Contents


1. Is happiness completely attainable product of human activity?

2. What the thinkers of different eras considered by happiness.

3. Source, definition and mission of happiness.


1. Is happiness completely attainable product of human activity?


Everyone has an idea of misfortune and various troubles, meeting with them repeatedly, but no one has yet really explained what happiness is, reducing its meaning, at best, to pleasure, satisfaction of emerging needs and well-being, that is, to the positive experiences, to which in fact all living organisms strive in their self-sufficiency, while happiness is a completely independent category, reflecting a certain activity of only human consciousness.

And without cutting off happiness from pleasure, well-being and complete satisfaction with surrounding, a person would hardly have any differences from animals that also strive for greater comfort, satiety, reproduction and other pleasant things, and happiness would be reduced in this case to physiology, namely, - to the release of endorphins (hormones of happiness), which is associated with the system of encouragement and centers of pleasure of the organism.

Nevertheless, almost all famous thinkers tried to show happiness as a completely attainable product of intellectual, emotional and moral human activity, not forgetting about pleasure and satisfaction in this case, but not taking into account that abstractions - but happiness is a perfect image of the desired, purely individual for every person, - in real life do not happen.

As a result, in fact, it did not work out to define elusive happiness, except for reducing it to the highest good or virtue with a certain amount of pleasure and independence, as well as self-sufficiency, but there are many descriptions of "true happiness" in real life that contradict each other.

In addition, happiness, in order to accommodate it in real life, tried to divide into parts and certain levels, emotional, mental, intellectual, depending on the reasons for it, for example, as the model of the pie, according to which happiness is determined by the conditions in which a person has fallen; by the nature of the personality, since there are people supposedly always cheerful and happy, for example, fools, and people are always sad and unhappy, for example, hypochondriacs; by the correct setting of goals, which can permanently invigorate and give satisfaction.

In addition, some thinkers believe that happiness can be brought by the benevolence of fate, by success, luck, etc.; that happiness is the permanent joy; possession of all possible goods; complete satisfaction with oneself and life.

This undoubtedly indicates that everyone understands happiness in their own way, but no one can penetrate into the essence of this manifestation of self-consciousness, which is not surprising, since what is happiness can be understood only by meabs of the transition from the character and actions of a person to the dissatisfaction of self-consciousness of a person, which supports own activity, in particular, and by such stimulus for the development, as happiness, which can only be an imaginary positive due to its abstractness.

As for ordinary reflection, that is, reflections on the nature, so to speak, of trivial happiness, it, as a rule, correlates with external factors, with the character of the individual, the tasks he solves and the relationships that arise.

However, for persuasiveness, we can cite several of the most common characteristics of happiness, given of it by famous people, which, surprisingly, are quite banal and very contradictory, and most importantly, they all do not give a clear definition of happiness, do not indicate its initial source and do not explain what for happiness is really need to.

Seneca. True happiness ... enjoy the present, without the anxious dependence of thoughts about the future.

Rubin T. Happiness does not come from doing easy work. It is the aftertaste of the satisfaction that comes after solving a difficult task that required everything you could do.

Emets D. Happiness is all life, minus misfortunes and obvious absurdities.

Mahatma Gandhi. Happiness is when what you think, say, and do is in harmony.

Dalai Lama. Happiness is not something we get in ready-made. It comes from our own actions.

Voltaire. Happiness is an abstract idea made up of several sensations of pleasure.

Voltaire. The seeker of happiness is like a drunk who cannot find his home in any way, but knows that he has a home.

Buddha. Thinking that someone else can make you happy or unhappy is ridiculous.

Flaubert G. Happiness is a fiction, the search for it is the cause of all disasters in life.

Cicero M. Happiness is nothing but well-being in honest affairs.

Fromm E. Happiness is an experience of the fullness of beingness, not an emptiness that needs to be filled.

Dostoevsky F. A person is unhappy because he does not know that he is happy.

Turgenev I. A happy person is like a fly in the sun.

[1]

Nevertheless, this kind of characterizations of happiness, mostly in the form of its outer shell, was repugnant to some prominent thinkers. So they tried to get into the depth of this strange phenomenon, which seems to exist, but at the same time like the horizon - always slips away, and which, in their opinion, has no direct relation to pleasures.

Kant I. Happiness is the ideal not of reason, but of imagination.

Pythagoras. Don't chase after happiness: it is always in you.

Levanti O. Happiness is not what you experience, it is what you remember.

Voltaire. Happiness is only a dream, and grief is real.

Buddha. There is no path to happiness, happiness is the path.

[1]

However, this approach to the concept of happiness in the same way does not reveal the essence of this phenomenon of human consciousness, does not explain it, does not indicate its source and mission, being just a description of some aspects of its manifestation.

Nevertheless, we will present additionally some fundamental approaches to the study of the phenomenon of happiness.


2. What the thinkers of different eras considered by happiness.


The simplest and most direct understanding of happiness in life was that of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristippus (435-355 BC).

He considered all kinds of pleasure as happiness, provided all pain is eliminated, that is as if quite reasonable.

However, as a true philosopher, he could not be satisfied with such a primitive approach to happiness, and declared that the inner pleasure of the spirit, regardless of external influences, is a true manifestation of liberty, since it is necessary not to let the enjoyment enslave the spirit: "... the best lot is not to abstain from enjoyments, but to dominate them, not to obey them "[2, p.571. (Diog. Laert. II 75)]. Nevertheless, Aristippus argued that liberty by liberty, but one must live with pleasure [3, p. 248-249].

However, Aristippus rejected the pleasures, which later bring great displeasure, thereby urging to obey the custom and the law [4, p. 132].

As an application to the hedonism of Aristippus, let us note his primordial wisdom by the way he answered the question: "Who is better to be, dominant or subordinate?" And he answered as follows: his path "not through power, not through slavery, but through liberty, which most surely leads to happiness" [5, p. 94-96 (Xen. Mem. III 8)].

Thus, Aristippus sees happiness in the satisfaction of a person's desire for a pleasant, joyful, free pastime, that is, - in comfort and relative independence, as if distracting himself from what is happening in reality, which only does what puts each person sooner or later into a difficult situation, from which it is necessary to somehow get out. And so it continues until death, which is already hopeless.

Therefore, it makes no sense to imagine happiness in the form of pleasure and comfort, which in reality are perishable products due to disturbing thoughts and everyday threats of varying degrees. All drug addicts are well aware of this, who no longer seek pleasure from life in it.

This means that a person should look for happiness not in dubious pleasures, reminiscent of a feast during the plague, but in something else.

In contrast to Cyrenaics, whose main representative was Aristippus, Stoics rejected pleasure as a guarantee of happiness due to the fact that in a world filled with ignorance, vices, troubles and catastrophes, obtaining pleasure is quite problematic, and pleasure itself often causes illness, and at its excess - and death.

Therefore, the Stoics decided not to adapt to similar "bad" reality, but ignoring it, to live in harmony with themselves. They believed that only by developing one's personality in opposition to any external forces, one can avoid one's own destruction and loss of face, and to this abstinence and virtuous actions based on knowledge can lead. Exactly It is the only guarantee of human happiness. In other words, this personal happiness can only be achieved by immersing yourself in your own inner world, which, unlike the external world, is possible to control. [6, p. 148-191].

This view of happiness quite clearly reflects the following statement of the ancient Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD): "All people want to live happily, my brother Gallion, but they have a vague idea of what a happy life is ... While we fussily wander without a guide, listening to the noise of absurd screams that beckon us to various temptations, life is spent in vain among delusions, and it is short even if we take care of our spiritual development day and night... Our main task should be that we do not follow, like cattle, the leaders of the herd, so that we go not where others are going, but where duty commands ... No one is mistaken to harm himself, but everyone is a cause and a culprit someone else's delusion ... life is happy if it is consistent with its nature. Such life is possible only if, first, a person constantly possesses a sound mind; then, if his spirit is courageous and energetic, noble, enduring and prepared for all circumstances; if he, without falling into anxious suspiciousness, takes care of the satisfaction of physical needs; if he is at all interested in the material aspects of life, not being tempted by any of them; finally, if he knows how to use the gifts of fate, without becoming their slave ... Instead of pleasures, instead of insignificant, fleeting and not only disgusting, but also harmful enjoyments, there comes strong, unshakable and constant joy, peace and harmony of spirit, greatness combined with meekness " [7, p. 47-74].

Such narrowed view of the Stoics on happiness testifies to the fact that, asserting the adherence to duty and the order of things in a state of immersion in their own controlled inner world as a guarantee of happiness, they remove themselves, like monks, out of the outside world, which is just given for development. personality, and hence its consciousness, in overcoming difficulties, troubles and their own vices.

That is, being satisfied with your inner world in attempts to achieve harmony in it, which supposedly corresponds to happiness, it is impossible to experience the whole gamut of sensations and comprehend many ideas that appear as a result of struggle, grief and disasters in beingness. Satisfaction by oneself, preached by the Stoics, does not mean striving for happiness in the form of some kind of perfect image, but only a detachment from all real aspirations inside one's own stagnation and temporary serenity, which leads only to the "joy" of preserving one's own uselessness for the world.

Unlike Aristippus, who imagined happiness in the satisfaction of a person's desire for a pleasant, joyful, free pastime, Epicurus (342-271 BC) represented happiness as a dependent on sensations, since life is given in them. Therefore, Epicurus puts in the forefront pleasure as the absence of pain, suffering and anxiety.

Epicurus finds the way to eliminate anxieties in getting rid of false opinions, leading to equanimity and tranquility, limiting needs, moderation in pleasures, since immoderation in them threatens with suffering. In addition, Epicurus sees removal from anxiety in self-removal from public and state affairs, since unreason and injustice reign in society.

In this state of serene repose, equivalent to the achievement of happiness, a person is self-sufficient and he has nothing to share, and nothing to do with others: "... among our desires, some should be considered natural, others - empty, and among the natural, some are necessary, others - only natural; and among the necessary ones, some are necessary for happiness, others - for calmness of the body, and still others - just for life. If, in this consideration, no mistakes are made, then any preference and any avoidance will lead to bodily health and mental serenity, and this is the ultimate goal of a blissful life. After all, everything we do, we do so that we have neither pain nor anxiety; and when this is finally achieved, then any storm of the soul dissipates, since a living being no longer needs to go to something as if to a lacking one, and to seek something, as if for the fullness of mental and bodily benefits. Indeed, after all, we feel the need for pleasure only when we suffer from its absence, and when we do not suffer, then we do not feel the need. That is why we say that pleasure is both the beginning and the end of a blissful life; we have cognized it as the first good, akin to us, with it we begin any preference and avoidance and return to it, using suffering as a measure of any good" [2, p.402-411].

Similar happiness resembles the state of a detached sturdy plant, which no one and nothing bothers and which no one needs. But man is not a plant and must seek happiness in a gradual approach to the desired image, which he himself created in his imagination, which is incompatible with a state of rest and serenity.

Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) defined happiness as "the activity of the soul in the fullness of virtue" [8].

Thus, the path to happiness, and its main aspect, is morality within the framework of an active mind, which also gives a kind of pleasure and leads to satisfaction with life in general, since happiness as perfection chooses virtue, and virtue directly passes into happiness.

Here Aristotle makes two mistakes at once.

First, he again reduces happiness to pleasures, but of a different kind in comparison with natural ones, while pleasures have no direct relation to the wavering cloud of the most perfect and most desirable, how it seems to man at least at certain moment, which is designated by him as happiness, being only the "driving belt" of life, making life not so disgusting.

Secondly, Aristotle believes that it is possible through virtue to actually achieve happiness, but happiness, as a pure abstraction, is present in being only virtually - you can strive for it, but it is impossible to achieve it.

In other words, happiness as the highest good is inaccessible to a person in real life. It plays the role of a beacon, the light of which everyone is seemed in his own way in accordance with the chosen means for rapprochement with him and dreams of the future. But this light comes from another space, which is not directly related to the current reality, and it can only be seen, but not achieved.

If ancient philosophers of Europe are looking for happiness in real life, then Eastern philosophers in the material world do not note it.

However, in personal life, in their opinion, happiness is quite achievable if you get a good home, great clothes, nice friends. But this is not enough for complete happiness without inner peace. [9].

Such "wisdom" is actually far from the truth and is very contradictory.

Although happiness does not literally occur in real life, it always illuminates it like the sun, which gives life by its light to inhabitants of Earth. Along with that, repose is good only in a dream, and in life there is nothing better than a struggle that gives space for the manifestation of all abilities and intentions of a person, thereby developing his consciousness in actions, that, actually, is required from life for consciousness.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), like most of the ancient philosophers, believed that happiness can be manifested only in "the perception of perfect good."

However, Thomas is quite controversial in his approach to the concept of happiness.

On the one hand, Thomas claims that "... intelligent nature can achieve happiness, which is the perfection of the intellectual nature ... but the sensual nature is not at all capable of achieving the designated goal" [10. Section 1].

On the other hand, he believed that "... in this life only some complicity to happiness is possible, but perfect true happiness in this life is impossible ... ... as long as happiness is "a perfect and self-sufficient good", then this means the absence of any evil and the fulfillment of any desire. But it is impossible that in present life there is no evil at all" [10. Section 3].

Thomas in this respect is inferior, in particular, to Epicurus, who sees the removal from anxiety not in abstract reasoning, but in self-removal from public and state affairs, since unreason and injustice prevail in society.

That is, Thomas did not find at least some acceptable answer to the solution of the question of achieving happiness in the current reality, stating the impossibility of achieving it in it, in contrast to Epicurus, but still half-recognized the possibility of a reasonable human nature to come to happiness.

Thomas's similar approach to the phenomenon of happiness is explained by the fact that he was unable to determine the essence of happiness as an ideal image that can be sought, but not achieved, due to the distracted, imaginary nature of this image, which does not coincide with the realities of life, but from which follow unambiguous answers to the questions raised about the manifestation or non-manifestation of happiness in current reality.

I. Kant (1724-1804) equates happiness with morality, calling it "the highest good", to which we must strive, obeying the demand of duty, only within the framework of which happiness is an acceptable goal: "As for the principle of our own happiness, then ... this principle is useless because it subsumes morality with motives that, rather, undermine it and destroy its entire sublime character, mixing in one class the motivation for virtue and the motivation for vice and teaching only one thing - how best to calculate, and the specific difference between the two is completely erased" [11, p. 221].

Thus, good, as a condition of bliss, occupies a dominant position in this unity, and this thesis immediately leads Kant to God, because in real life no bliss flows from good. That is, happiness can be found only in another world, if you behave correctly in this, receiving appropriate satisfaction from your own adequacy: "... the moral law requires from everyone the most accurate observation. Consequently, the judgment about what should be done in accordance with this law should be simple enough so that the most ordinary and inexperienced mind could handle it, even without being sophisticated by worldly experience" [11, p. 417].

In essence, Kant has not understood the nature and mission of happiness, but he grasped its uncertainty and subjectivity in real life, which he noted in his statement: "Happiness is the ideal not of reason, but of imagination" [12], which, however, he did not explain, i.e. has not revealed the source of happiness, its mission and did not give a definition of happiness.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) considered the highest good of a person to be his personality: mind, abilities, and physicality. But then he points out that we must take care of both the acquisition of personal funds and our own good name: "... for our happiness and our enjoyment, the subjective is incomparably more important than the objective... notably, health is so much higher than all other benefits that a truly healthy beggar is happier than a sick king... ... we should not, however, make the false conclusion that we should not worry about acquiring the necessary and decent funds. But wealth itself, that is, a large surplus, contributes little to our happiness, and therefore many rich people feel unhappy: they have no spiritual development, no knowledge ... ...everyone should strive for honor, that is, a good name... Thus, for happiness of human life, the most essential thing is that what a person has in himself ..." [13, p. 2-7].

Unlike Kant, who nevertheless felt a certain inaccessibility of happiness, its non-everyday character, Schopenhauer follows the beaten path, explaining what is most needed for happiness in beingness, and what is unnecessary and even harmful, believing that since there is misfortune, then the deviation from them due to the measures he proposed, it will be just right for finding happiness.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) was rather contradictory person, striving to be original in everything.

Therefore, his approach to happiness was also contradictory, but much less original.

On the one hand, he, in essence, repeats the thoughts of ancient philosophers (see above), arguing, for example, that "Misfortune has escaped you, enjoy this as your happiness" [14].

And here he asserts something opposite: "Only his thoughts, and not external circumstances, make a person unhappy or happy. By controlling his thoughts, he controls his happiness" [15].

Proclaiming that there is happiness in life, and even of various scales: "Every little happiness should be used as a sick bed for recovery - and nothing else... When you will value what you have, and not live in search of ideals, then you will truly become happy" [15], Nietzsche, in contrast to this, says that happiness is elusively final: "The pursuit of truth is the same as the pursuit of happiness" [15].

Thus, Nietzsche not only did not give a definition of happiness, but also did not indicate its source, and he sees mission of happiness in humanization, which is not accessible to everyone [16].

That is, Nietzsche did not note the main thing in a person - his self-consciousness, thanks to which each person, and not only the chosen ones, can create in his imagination an image of own happiness and correct it with age or in the case of a change in circumstances, striving for this image, and believing, that it is achievable.

Unlike previous thinkers who anguished over the problem of happiness, and sometimes offered quite witty and convincing solutions, modern psychologists are surprisingly far from understanding the essence of the problem and are even ridiculous when talking about it.

In particular, Maria Heinz decomposes happiness into short-term and long-term, associating positive emotions with the first, and deep satisfaction with the second [17, p. 35-128].

Generalizing, Heinz concludes that happiness is the joy we feel when we strive to reach our potential.

Positive emotions are found at every step, even from tickling, but what does happiness have to do with it, and satisfaction is especially grateful felt after the difficult function of natural needs in a toilet. As for the potential, then it is especially joyfully revealed in drunkenness and partying, after which you have a headache and it is impossible to remember what you said.

It seems to John Gottman that happiness and success in all areas of life are determined by the awareness of own emotions and the ability to cope with their feelings [18, p. 17].

Success has nothing to do with happiness at all, being very often is not as a cherished dream, but just the result of hard work or is at all achieved by chance, for example, in card games. Besides, having realized one's emotions not in time, you can be instead of happiness in a unworthy position for yourself, for example, rejoicing in someone else's misfortune.

Generally speaking, most researchers of the problem of happiness, as we saw above, confuse happiness with positive emotions and satisfaction, trying to combine happiness with the current reality.

In particular, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev believed that in a state of happiness a person stops, because he no longer has anything to strive for. In this regard, he considered the concept of happiness to be meaningless and even harmful: "Human liberty and dignity do not allow to see happiness and satisfaction as the goal and the highest good of life. There is an insurmountable conflict between liberty and happiness ... I agree to misfortunes and suffering in order to remain a free being ... ... he (a person) prefers free creativity of spiritual values to happiness. But a person is also a being - diseased, divided into two, determined by the dark unconscious. And therefore he is not a being striving at all costs for happiness and satisfaction. No law can make him a creature that prefers happiness to liberty, satisfaction and tranquility to creativity. For this reason alone, a person's life cannot be completely subordinated to the law. Grace gives only a moment of joy and bliss" [19].

That is, Berdyaev again introduces happiness into reality, while only the dissatisfaction of a person's self-consciousness acts in it, just not allowing him to stop, but suggesting again and again to strive for an ideal way of existence, composed by himself, and this image in no way can combine with the current reality with all its vices and troubles.

In addition, Berdyaev, like the Stoics, as well as Epicurus, confuses happiness with satisfaction and tranquility, while happiness is a product of dissatisfaction with self-consciousness, which stimulates a person to achieve that ideal image that he creates himself in the process of overcoming many difficulties, troubles and miseries, but a person is not able to coincide even in his consciousness with the ideal, developed by himself, but is able to significantly change his self-consciousness in such striving.

And this desire for happiness does not oppose liberty, as Berdyaev believes; on the contrary, it supports this aspiration, since liberty is also a product of dissatisfaction of consciousness, but consciousness in whole, which leads into the development of ways to change a person's self-consciousness by means of influencing a surrounding beingness taking into account its counteraction. [20, chap. 1].

But if happiness stems out of self-consciousness, then liberty is a product of the interaction of instinctive (natural consciousness) and realized (self-consciousness) in a person, interacting with each other in their contradictory aspirations, producing through a person the destruction and creation of reality [21, part 3, section 3]. And in this respect, liberty is broader than happiness, which comes only from awareness of oneself, but happiness always shimmers before a person as a perfect and purely individual image that attracts a person to him and, at least, does not make him worse if he really strives for it, but not pleasure or serenity.


3. Source, definition and mission of happiness.


Happiness, if it is presented, as is typical for the majority, as extremely pleasant sensations, before the emergence of a person among the rest living beings, was not present in their consciousness, since the aspirations and actions of all living beings were determined not by opinions, but only by instincts and reflexes, being an unconscious reaction on the impact of the environment. This reaction has always been only adaptive in relation to this environment, which they, as and themselves. if changed, then without any goal-setting and without striving to go beyond the environment in any respect.

Subconsciousness, more precisely, the presence of only natural consciousness, or the absence of subjectivity, naturally, rejects the understanding of such an abstraction in the sphere of emotions and intellect as happiness. Therefore, all living things, except for humans, from amoeba to primates, are content with just striving for pleasant sensations, without separating themselves from the environment, and no more.

Imagination in the form of certain abstractions is peculiar only to a person who, having self-consciousness, is able not only to adapt to the environment, but also to consciously change it for himself with the appropriate goal-setting, striving for images, constructed by him in consciousness, which do not exist in nature, and thereby placing himself in one way or another above it.

Therefore, a person is able to strive not only for pleasant sensations, but also set goals for himself, the achievement of which, as he sometimes believes, will provide him with a local paradise for some time. True, each subject represents this paradise in his own way, but he must satisfy him completely - both mentally and emotionally - preferably for the rest of his life, although he does not refuse any period of presence in this paradise-happiness.

However, attainment of any goal, be it fame, honor, power. money, love immediately devalues what has been achieved, so how paradise, or happiness does not appear, except for some satisfaction with what has been achieved, which previously seemed so desirable and perfect, but turned out to be coarse, primitive and unreliable. At the same time, diseases, adversities, troubles in communication do not go anywhere, despite any achievements.

But every person believes in the coming of happiness, reasonably believing that since there is misfortunes, then there must be something opposite to them, understanding by happiness precisely his own imaginary paradise, which in fact cannot have anything to do with reality, except for a short-term pleasantness, as well as foretaste of attainment of the desired passionately.

But this desired happiness in a strange way always slips away, leaving only the rough reality and the hope that next time it will finally happen.

This means that the instinctive dissatisfaction of the consciousness of any living being with the current situation in its striving for more pleasant sensations, in the human consciousness, additionally receives the already conscious dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, and this dissatisfaction can be expressed in some abstractions, the extreme expression of which is the concept of happiness as such an absolute, which can give complete satisfaction both in a state of mind and emotions, if not permanently, then at least for a while.

But, alas, abstractions never turn into reality, and happiness always only beckons, remaining within the limits of possibility, but not reality.

However, the pursuit of happiness, dictated by the dissatisfaction of a person's self-consciousness, presupposes, as a rule, an intensification of his efforts to achieve happiness, which ensures a significant share of the progress of civilization and, at the same time, the development of human self-consciousness, since he cannot accept, like animals, what is, but must by all means seek and desire happiness, not admitting the thought that it exists only in his imagination, but in reality, receiving, at best, only positive emotions, followed by disappointment with what has been achieved, no matter how hard any person tries, combined with suffering and misfortune of all kinds,

Therefore, happiness should be defined as an expression of that side of dissatisfaction of self-consciousness, which, having formed together with the intellect an ideal image of a completed positive existence, strives for it, but does not find consent in the reached with this image.

Indeed, the achievement of any set goal can only give satisfaction, but not happiness, and even then for a short period of time, because dissatisfaction in self-consciousness with what has been achieved does not disappear anywhere as the main stimulus for activity, and drives a person further, and if he refuses this race, trying with all his might to suppress the dissatisfaction of own self-consciousness and at the same time considering himself happy in the achieved satisfaction, that is, in inactivity, then he quickly turns into a worthless creature - a living corpse that is not needed even by his own consciousness.

Thus, the maximum satisfaction with what has been achieved and even the most pleasant sensations at the same time, which some people consider to be some semblance of happiness, not only do not lead a person to happiness, but, on the contrary, can stop him in development, which is equivalent to the greatest misery, since competitors are not asleep.

It turns out that, in essence, mission of a person, about which he does not know, because he cannot admit that he is just an instrument of his own consciousness in the form of animal (natural) consciousness and self-consciousness, acquired and significantly developed since the era of hominids, consists to strive to the impossible, without which the development of self-consciousness is inconceivable. And waiting for something better or even the struggle to satisfy their ambitions, which, for example, is characteristic of males of primates, who have not become humans for tens of millions of years, only reduces humans to the likeness of a monkey.

On the other hand, a person's lack of understanding of the impossibility of achieving in real life happiness, in quality of which he can imagine anything, in particular, one good thing or something questionable, but pleasing to him, that, truly, rather foolishly, encourages him with the best intentions and full energy to achieve both personal and general harmony, complete satisfaction and the highest enjoyments in both intellectual activity and emotions.

This phenomenon resembles to some extent an unfounded belief in heavenly tabernacles, where you can get if you lead a righteous life, with which, for example, Immanuel Kant was agreed.

Be that as it may, but the inevitable dissatisfaction of self-consciousness as the motor of its activity, being by doing so by the very source of the striving for happiness in the form of the image of the perfect and desired, formed in the mind, always throws away the past and strives into the future, regardless of obstacles, hardships, troubles and catastrophes (what kind of happiness is there in the form of complete goodness), that is necessary for the development of self-consciousness, which is simply unable to completely immerse itself in serenity and harmony - some "happy" beingness, like into a vat of jam, in which, despite all sweetness of this wonderful substance, one can only choke.

Moreover, for some reason, rarely does anyone remember the action in man of his animal nature in the form of lower consciousness, which is often called subconsciousness.

And this animal consciousness, as a rule, counteracts the intentions of self-consciousness with its utilitarianism, striving only for pleasantness, comfort, favorable conditions for reproduction and domination over neighbors, and it is only hindered by absurdity of the intentions of self-consciousness in its aspiration, for example, to improve oneself and harmonize social relations, in than most thinkers see outcome of human activity presenting it as individual and general happiness [see, e. g., 21, Part 3].

Even before a person, in the process of developing self-consciousness, learned to create in his imagination ideal and more or less integral images of the desired, he had to face in purely practical activity the satisfaction of his purely vital needs. Some of them were necessary, like getting food, but not interesting, others attracted him by the pleasure obtained, for example, in the process of drawing or making original hunting or household tools.

That is, a person, could not, like animals, be satisfied only with the provision of life processes, and after completing everything necessary for life support, he, in the intervals between work, felt dissatisfaction with the fulfillment of only the obligatory, and this accumulating dissatisfaction with himself in the surrounding everyday monotony sooner or later was pushing him to search for something different from the existing one, which is usually denoted by the term "interesting" (unusual, provocative, mysterious, incredible, frightening, exciting, outrageous, surprising, in a word - something else) both in simple, everyday life, and in complex relationships between people, as well as in technology and art.

Therefore, anything can interest a person, as long as it differs from the routine, diversifies life, and at the same time changes the environment of human communities, since the interesting things were giving fruit in the form of new ways of hunting, cooking, breeding plants, taming animals, etc.

Thus, interest as a regularly arising and to a certain extent conscious attraction to something new for oneself in current circumstances, is characteristic only of a person due to awareness of himself, with the help of which he tries to take himself out of the established order. It leads him to the discovery of things and phenomena of interest to him, promising not so much profit as a temporary departure from the bored reality.

In other words, satisfaction is sought in interesting, but it is happened never definitively because, having stopped on one, you can lose the rest, which cannot be allowed, otherwise there is no new satisfaction in the other interesting, and even already found interesting cannot bring full satisfaction itself because of its imperfection, the elimination of which requires, as a rule, a long, time-consuming and tedious refinement, which is not so interesting.

Be that it may, to be engaged boring, sometimes nasty, but necessary affairs it is impossible all time - the distracting and entertaining interval between them for pleasures and sufferings is necessary; along with that, it is not bad sometimes to chase the unrealizable - for happiness, love, good for all, which, nevertheless, is attractive due to the intense arrival of new information that gives food for the senses and the mind.

On the other hand, it is impossible to linger for a long time in an attractive (interesting, that is, intermediate place), not only because it becomes habitual and cannot surprise with anything, but also because it does not wait for everyday work, it"s necessary to be fed, again the routine makes to: and all life is made up of "the runs" from one interesting to the next at intervals of uninteresting, but necessary to ensure a banal existence.

Nevertheless, what is interesting, is characterized by the fact that it significantly increases information flows, capturing the entire society not only with its new products, but also with new approaches to education and everyday life, thanks to new technologies and new forms of cultural development.

More information about the problem of the interesting can be found in the work "Why and due to what are manifested the interest and interesting?" [see, e.g., 22, Part 1. Section 4].

Due to the continuous replacement of one interesting with another, and the variety of finds, a person needed something intimate of his own, purely individually stable, like the light of a lighthouse, to which he could strive all his life, which he could endlessly trust and not lose hope of reaching this guiding star in the darkness of everyday life, which also could not be provided by religion, whose lengthy dogmas and promises are designed for the maximum possible coverage of the population.

At first, a person has drawn attention to beauty, more precisely, to what seemed to him beautiful and unusual in its fundamental difference from the everyday things around him, delighting him.

It was sunrises and sunsets enchanting with their beauty, moonlight in the silence of the night, extraordinary play of butterfly wings, dew flickering on flowers. All this and many other beautiful things have always remained unchanged, repeating themselves every day or every season, or every year, if, of course, you pay attention to it.

All these unchanging phenomena that did not depend on a person, but which he could observe, could not help but lead him to the idea that he himself could try to create for himself something similar - individually beautiful, which will only be his creation, and about which he will not tell anyone, but this own beauty will "warm" him all life, even if it turns out to be just as inaccessible for copying, and in this respect - otherworldly, like the beautiful.

Naturally, in contrast to external, natural beauty, a person could create his own more or less stable and attractive beautiful for himself only in own imagination, depending on his own ideas, desires, intentions, experience, character, preferences, etc.

The resulting image of the sincerely and invariably desired, of course, could be corrected during life due to age, changing conditions, but at its core it remained unchanged, beautiful and alluring as before, and so close that it seems that if you reach out hand, it's yours. The hand was being stretched out, but the beautiful image of one's own desired always removed, remaining just as desirable and beautiful, but since this image was by own creation, there was always hope of achieving it.

And if the beauty of natural phenomena or the contemplation of masterpieces of painting, the appeal to genius texts and music penetrating into the consciousness brings a person episodically only the enjoyment by this beautiful, but does not change the essence of a person, his self-consciousness, then the image of an individually beautiful and desirable, which he created only for himself, and to which he always strives, overcoming any difficulties and doubts, invariably acts on his self-consciousness productively, that is, develops it in this striving.

However, the degree of touching the beautiful in nature or in art, as well as the richness of the individually created image of the beautiful and at the same time the desired for a person, which he has denoted as happiness, depends on the level of development of a person's self- consciousness: the higher it is, the more inclined a person is to really beautiful, the lower this level, the more addiction a person experiences for pleasures, small interesting and simply curious, since his self-awareness approaches the lower, or animal form of consciousness, aimed not at high ideas and feelings, not at beauty in the world, not at his own improvement, but only at the consumption of sensations from eating, reproduction, domination and the convenience of one's own accommodation, which thereby become quite attainable happiness, but in fact - its ersatz, similar to animal well-being.

Happiness is higher step in the development of a person's self- consciousness in comparison with interesting, coinciding with it in that it is also the object of attraction, albeit are in a different category. But if the interesting is reachable, turning into uninteresting, when it is discovered, then happiness does not lose its quality of individually beautiful, since it slips away all the time quite naturally, since the inner image in the form of vague sensations and wavering desires cannot coincide with the result obtained in rough reality.

Therefore, happiness, like interesting, never finds final solution. But if the interesting just periodically changes, then happiness, being until the death of a person in a state of a vague image, is not able to turn into a specific object or phenomenon that satisfies the one who is looking for it, and this quasi happiness, which was found, is immediately depreciated due to its catastrophic non-coincidence with the sought individually beautiful internal image.

Unlike interesting, happiness is not a direct source of information due to the extreme abstractness, non-viability and vagueness of image of the desired for a person, and in his understanding - the perfect, but happiness thanks to attraction of a person to itself, creates a process in which a person willy-nilly changes, that means also the change in his self-consciousness - not necessarily for the better, but certainly in the different - still unknown, which is interesting for consciousness in a whole accumulating all own changes.

So happiness only beckons in the brevity of a human life, but, nevertheless, it always leaves hope for its own arrival, as a result of which every person strives for it again and again, and therefore happiness is always present in life not directly as certain good, but in the image of what everyone wants most of all, and most of all every person always want the inaccessible and unfeasible so far.


Bibliography


1. https://burido.ru/1008-tsitaty-pro-schaste

2. Диоген Лаэртский. О жизни, учениях и изречениях знаменитых философов. М., Мысль. 1986, с.571. (Diog. Laert. II 75)].

3. Doring K. Aristipp aus Kyrene und die Kyrenaiker// Die Philosophie der Antike. - 1998/ - Bd. 2. - Hbd. 1. - S. 248-249.

4. Виндельбанд В. История древней философии. - Киев. Тандем. 1995. - С. 132].

5. Ксенофонт. Воспоминания о Сократе. - М., Наука. 1993. С. 94-96 (Xen. Mem. III 8)].

6. Гусев Д. А. Социальные предпосылки зарождения античного скептицизма и специфика стоической теории познания. - Философская мысль. 2015. ╧ 1, с. 148-191.

7. Древнеримские мыслители. Свидетельства. Тексты. Фрагменты. Киев. 1958. С. 47-74.

8 Аристотель. Никомахова этика. Книга 1. Соч. в 4 томах. М., 1983.

9. Dalai lama XIV. How to practice. The way to a meaningful life (www. Theosophy.ru

10. Thomas Aquinas. Sum of theology. Volume IV. Question 5.

11. Кант И. Основоположения метафизики нравов. Соч. в 8 тт. М., ЧОРО. 1994. Т. 4, с. 221.

12. Кант И. Изречения. Калининград. Издательство РГУ им. И. Канта. 2010. ISBN 978-5-9971-0077-3.

13. Шопенгауэр А. Афоризмы житейской мудрости.

## Глава 1. 2015. Litres. ISBN 978-5-699-75854-8.


14. Ницше Ф. Веселая наука. М., "Мысль". 1990

15. Ницше Ф. Человеческое, слишком человеческое. Книга для свободных умов. М., "Мысль". 1990

16. Ницше Ф. По ту сторону добра и зла. Лениздат. 2014

17. Мария Хайнц. Позитивный тайм-менеджмент: Как успевать быть счастливым. М. Альпина Паблишер. 2014. С. 35-128. ISBN 978-5-9614-4795-8

18. Джон Готтман, Джоан Деклер. Эмоциональный интеллект ребенка. Практическое руководство для родителей. М., Манн, Иванов,Фербер. 2015. С. 17

19. Бердяев Н. А. Избранные мысли о вере и Боге. Счастье. Yakov.works /4/texts/Berdyaev/04 Bog.htm].

20. Nizovtsev Y. M. In what, how and for what liberty is acting. 2014. Amazon.

21. Nisovtsev Yu. The collection of the especial and outlandish - for the check with respect to creativity. 2019. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: Amazon. Yury Nizovtsev.

22. Nisovtsev Yu. It's the other way around. Answers to tricky questions about interesting things (Collection). 2018. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: Amazon. Yury Nizovtsev.