Columbia University

COCI C1101 Contemporary Western Civilization

Donna A. Bilak
20th October 2014
Gauri Bahuguna

Misery Loves Company: The Inescapable Unhappiness In The Good Life

Nobody wants to be unhappy. It is a simple maxim that is simply too abstract

when carefully considered. Because before forgoing unhappiness, can anybody define
what happiness is? Whether its a positive emotion, state of being or something entirely

intangible, there still exists a cloud of ambiguity that still cloaks the true nature of
happiness. Given this uncertainty, its intriguing how widely accepted the post hoc
rationale that a good life translates into or includes happiness. Why are unhappiness and
the good life mutually exclusive? Because if a life without happiness is assumed to be an
unhappy one, even individuals still in the pursuit of happiness or leading the good life are
technically unhappy.
This paradoxical fallacy of the relationship between happiness and the good life is
rooted in the cornerstones of Western philosophy and theology. In Platos seminal text
Republic, the character of Socrates imagines an ideal society to demonstrate the virtues of
justice. In this society Socrates reveals that the human telos, ultimate goal or aim, is to
achieve happiness, and a good life is one that follows this telos. However, the Ancient
Greek term for happiness, eudaemonia, translates more closely to a personal flourishing
and therefore a good life is one of focused dedication and hard work. Most of The Old
Testament in The Holy Bible preaches a similar guide to living a good life, albeit it
through a religious forum. A good life is one of unconditional faith in God, even in the
wake of the most grueling mortal hardships. Therefore ironically, in Platos Republic and
The Old Testament where lifes final reward is happiness, the good life is fraught with
unhappiness.
The path of the good life, with happiness as its final destination, is paved with
other virtues in both Platos Republic and The Old Testament. In Platos Republic the
intrinsic value of justice is central to the progression of discourse. Socrates confidently
declares to all guests at the dinner party justice is one of the greatest goods 1 and a just
person is happy 2. Subsequently, Socrates devises the eponymous republic as an analogy

to substantiate his theory that justice in the city translates into a just individual leading a
good life3. This republic is framed to emulate Socrates definition of justice as an inner
harmony4 of a city and all her components. The consequent premises are that people
need many things5and its impossible for a single person to practice many crafts or
professions well6, hence the requirement of specialized job classes to preserve the justice
in a city.
However, these logical assertions soon escalate into Socrates infamous Myth of
Metals7, a noble falsehood8 fed to the citizens in order to rigidly compartmentalize
them into either gold (the rulers), silver (the auxiliaries), bonze (craftsmen) or iron
(farmers). And for Socrates, if an individual were to express discontent with his or her
assigned metal class, or experiment with other crafts 9, it would rightly be called the
worst thing someone could do.10 Socrates acknowledges Adeimantus criticism that this
inordinate pigeonholing will make the citizens of the republic unhappy 11, however he
justifies this with the dismissive clarification that he is fashioning the happy city, not
picking out a few happy people and putting them in it. 12 Therefore, as long as the welloiled machine of the republic is just and cruising along the good life highway to
happiness, ostensibly it does not concern Socrates whether each individual cog is
languishing in disgruntlement.
The Old Testaments concern for its believers happiness is far greater than
Socrates concern for citizens happiness in Platos Republic. Perhaps this can be
attributed to the fact that the virtue paramount in The Old Testament is intrinsic faith in
God, as opposed to justice. Justice is a more apathetic virtue that doesnt need to be
benevolent or comprehensibly fair, it caters to placating the majority not the minority.

Whereas, faith is an immensely personal virtue, its a direct connection between an

individuals heart and God. The narrative of The Old Testament nurtures this private
relationship with God, as the good life for the Israelites may very well be salvation from
Egypt, and the chance of finding happiness in the Promised Land as promised directly by
God himself13.
Unfortunately, the characterization of Gods behavior towards the Israelites
dramatically changes once they are freed from Egypt and leading the good-life. God
begins comporting the despotic Pharaoh by intimidating the Israelites into faith with
threats like, diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord your God and I will put none
of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians. 14 Understandably, the Israelites
began conveying their dissatisfaction with this new reign of terror and murmured against
Moses and Aaron15. However, unlike Socrates deliberate indifference in Platos
Republic, God in The Old Testament was consistently munificent towards the Israelites
and performed miracles like parting the Red Sea 16 and making quail and manna appear in
the desert.17 However, the Israelites remained ungrateful and continued to moan despite
leading the good life as envisioned by God. The subsequent exasperated response from
both Moses, Why do you put the Lord to proof? 18 , crystalizes a possible reason why
God vindictively ensures not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good
land19 and repeatedly test the faith of the Israelites. 20 Hence, the good life in the narrative
of The Old Testament was not government by the heartening virtue of faith, but rather by
a souring fear of God that stemmed from the implacable misery and irreverence of the
Israelites.

It is surprising for modern readers to discover which of the two books mentions
an afterlife. Although religious texts are commonly associated with the promise of an
afterlife, The Old Testament makes no mention of such a possibility. By contrast, Platos
Republic, a philosophy text vividly describes the after life in the Myth of Er 21. The
absence or presence of an afterlife is paramount in analyzing the paradoxical unhappiness
in the good life in the texts, because an afterlife would justify people suffering the good
life in order to win eternal happiness. The Myth of Er narrates the tale of a recently
deceased solider named Er, who is brought back to life to inform humans of the judgment
of souls after death that mandates the just to go upwards into the heavens 22 and the
unjust ambiguously downwards where they paid the penalty ten times over23 for each
transgression. Thus, Socrates uses the prospect of happiness, both in this life and on the
thousand-year journey24, to guarantee the citizens remain loyal towards the republic and
submissively suffer the good life.
However, in The Old Testament there is no explicit mention of an afterlife in the
story of the Israelites and therefore no final judgment to reward virtue and damn vice.
Instead, the Israelites faithfulness to God is born out of a mortal fear of Gods wrath
smiting them in the life they were already living in. Amongst a slew of callous
punishments, God sold the Israelites into slavery, unleashed nine hundred chariots of
iron25 on them and oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years 26.
Understandably, fear of enduring such vengeance outweighed the affliction of the good
life in deference to God.
Finally, the Ecclesiastes offers an inspired perspective on the presence of an
afterlife and how it dictates the good life in a manner completely incongruent with the

rest of The Old Testament. The Ecclesiastes is often regarded as a pariah text of The
Bible because it revolves around autobiographical musings of the mysterious Preacher
instead of God. This Preacher solemnly professes that death is the ultimate equalizer as
the wise man dies just like the fool! 27 and that God will bring every deed into
judgment.28 The final judgment is an insinuation of an afterlife and a pretext for the
Preacher to chastise self-righteous individuals who claim to know what is good for
man29 and impose their notions of the good life on others. For the Preacher every man is
flawed30 and therefore a universal good life cannot demand grandiose things like pure
faith and obedience like in majority of The Old Testament and Republic because they will
ultimately lead to defiance and unhappiness. Instead, the Preacher distills the good life to
its bare bones, there is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and find
enjoyment in his toil.31
Perhaps, the good life is only tainted with unhappiness when the terms of the
good life itself are far too convoluted. In both Republic and The Old Testament (with the
exception of Ecclesiastes) the intimated dissatisfaction of the people was born from
abiding by too many stringent laws, whereas Ecclesiastes offered an organic illustration
of the good life that allowed for multifarious interpretations and manifestations. Because
although Platos Republic and The Old Testament promised happiness as the final
ambition, nothing ultimately flowers humans happiness quite as much as the simple
liberty of commanding their own choices.

1 Plato, Republic (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1992), 42.

2 Ibid. 31.
3 Ibid. 43.
4 Ibid. 119.
5 Ibid. 44.
6 Ibid. 49.
7 Ibid. 91.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid. 49.
10 Ibid. 109.
11 Ibid. 95.
12 Ibid.
13 The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version (New York: Penguin Group, 1974), 51.
14 Ibid. 61.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid. 60.
17 Ibid. 62.
18 Ibid. 63.
19 Ibid. 156.
20 Ibid. 220.
21 Plato, Republic, 285-291.
22 Ibid. 286.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid. 291.
25 The Holy Bible, 216.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid. 588.
28 Ibid. 594.
29 Ibid. 590.
30 Ibid. 591.
31 Ibid. 588.
Works Cited

Plato. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1992.

The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version. New York: Penguin Group, 1974.