Schopenhauer believed that suffering is “the immediate object of life”.

“It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.

This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful.”

(Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World)

He takes desire to be our driving force: the prospect of fulfilment rather than fulfilment itself. Without this “our existence must entirely fail of its aim”.

I can’t help but think that this is the Westernised equivalent of Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism agrees that human suffering is the result of desire, but has completely opposing ramifications! For a Buddhist, spiritual enlightenment is a product of the eradication of desire. Schopenhauer’s line of thought concludes that a sated existence depends on nurturing a continuous wealth of desires.

I always find interest at these junctures where East meets West. One speaks of purity, simplicity and control; the other speaks of consumption, pleasure and abundance. In all probability, like most philosophical conundrums, there is duality here. Both are true and therein lies the tension. So how can one ever achieve fulfilment?

The only way I can attempt to answer this question is to look at myself. I struggle when my life lacks direction and purpose. I am always setting myself goals, something to aim towards. If I don’t have this drive of ambition then I suffer mentally. The object of my desires though does not tend to be hedonistic or materialistic. This is the key difference between me and many people in the society I’m a part of. Yet a lot of these people appear to be far more content than I am!

A rather snobbish reaction I used to regularly have to this is that it’s simply a case of:

“It is better to be a human being satisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.”

(John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism)

This is to claim that I operate on a higher intellectual plain than most around me which I do not believe to be fair or accurate. Also, it precludes that intellectuals are not driven by base desires, which history as proven to be certainly not the case!

Another point I have to remind myself of is that you cannot assume other people’s state of happiness and fulfilment from outward appearances. The only thing that you can be certain of is that we all have struggles of our own kind and the completeness of their nature will never be apparent to the rest of the world.

Do I conclude pessimistically that as a Westernised citizen I am doomed to be plagued with the suffering of constant desire, whether intellectual or more primal, and that anyone around me that does appear to have reached a state of continued happiness and contentment is simply masking their true feelings?

Hopefully not! I like to think that our individual values dictate our most burning desires, that we construct our own set of values to avoid a vacuum of meaning to life, and that, because the values we adhere to are of our own volition, we are able to tune them to their best course and maximise the fulfilment element of desire in accomplishment’s everlasting waltz.

It is fair to say that we have all experienced fulfilment and pleasure in many different forms and that it is a staple of our lives. Something rather different (that’s really at the heart of this piece) is contentment. And, for me, one doesn’t become content by exhausting all of their desires or banishing them, one becomes content by accepting their particular position of suffering in the world. True happiness is to embrace our own dance.

This month's favourites:
   Britta Persson, Current Affair Medium Rare
   Agatha Christie, Murder on the Orient Express
   Fanny and Alexander (Original Cut) (1982)