Happiness is an important part of modern society, we all want it and spend a great deal of our time engaging in activities that we assume will bring it to us at some point in the future, even if the experience isn’t immediate. In fact, if you ask many people what they want from life, instead of mentioning success in their chosen career, a particular family status or the sort of place they hope to be able to live, its quite common to hear people say, “I just want to be happy”. This should come as no surprise: it’s the `happy` times we always remember with most fondness, the moments when we are happy are always those people have little desire for change and tend to be satisfied with their current state -despite any money problems, relationship issues or anxieties they may have at the time, and its in our `happier` moments when we feel, even if not close to those around us, complacent and satisfied at the very least. But what is happiness and what does it actually do for us?

The ancient Greek philosopher is well known for pointing out the fact that, in nature, almost everything is a means to an end; things that have developed naturally have been designed to fulfil some unique purpose, they are a means to an end: wings have the purpose of letting things fly, fangs designed perfectly for tearing into meat, a proboscis facilitates its owner with the ability to suck nectar from flowers, sexual organs allow a species to reproduce, and so on. This same rule applies to our desires as humans; the things we wish to obtain in life, both physical and phycological, are also means to some specific end. Most of the things that humans strive for are, in fact, completely worthless on their own. Money being a perfect example of this: owning a big house, making more friends, reaching a higher social status or being able to do more enjoyable activities are some of the end goals that money can be used as a means to achieve in our modern society.  On its own, however, money is nothing more than pieces of paper, small metallic circles or a number on a bank balance.

Happiness in its self doesn’t seem to have an end goal though. If someone asks you why you want to be happy, the question would seem completely ridiculous. Everyone wants to be happy, just because. Therefore, when we look at nature from a means to ends perspective, being happy is the end goal of human life, there’s no reason for it, its just something that we are all striving for and it is the motive behind everything we do. So according to Aristotle, those people who say that their aim in life is to “be happy” have hit the nail on the head, they aren’t confusing the acquisition of material goods, social recognition or a high status in society with the underlying objective they are all standing for. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that Aristotle wouldn’t have said that our end goal is to achieve a `happy life`, not exactly. The life we all want in Aristotle’s eyes is a `eudemonic` life.

The concept of eudemonia will be familiar to anyone who has studied or encountered ancient Greek texts is familiar with the culture of this ancient society. To everyone else, however, it is probably an alien idea. When looking for a translation for this adjective, `happiness` is probably the first thing one will come across and thus may wonder why on earth it is necessary to even make the effort to differentiate these terms. But it is important to recognize that Greek `eudemonia` is rather different to our contemporary understanding of happiness, so much to the point where many people find that referring to ``eudemonia` as happiness (in a modern sense) is to completely disregard the concept it defines.

This is because the word `happiness` often congers up thoughts of sipping cocktails on a beach, curling up on the sofa in front of an open fire in our little countryside cottage, strolling out onto a sun killed balcony in the morning before jumping into an infinity pool that overlooks the Mediterranean sun or maybe just laying back with a box of chocolates and enjoying a movie in the evening with good company. The concept of happiness we have today is closely linked to other ideas like cosiness, relaxation, familiarity, comfort, safety and tranquillity. Winning the lottery, coming from a wealthy family or earning a very high wage are perceived as direct ways of achieving happiness as they provide us with security and the freedom to acquire most of the goods we desire as an when we want them.

Eudemonia presents a very different idea or `happiness` and is often translated as `fulfilment` or `human flourishing`. This is because one cannot achieve a state of eudemonia by sitting back on their sofa all day watching TV, we cannot live a eudemonic life by coming from a wealthy background and spending our days enjoying epicurean pleasures without ever having to gain them, worry, struggle or fight for anything. No, eudemonia is all about reaching our full potential as humans, overcoming adversity, achieving objectives and living a generally complete life in which one has worked hard, made use of all their experiences -both good and bad- as well as achieving all of their goals and aims in life. A eudemonic life will not end with someone saying things like “I wish i…”, “I should have…”, why couldn’t I”… the eudemonic life is one in which the subject knows they have reached their full potential, that they have everything they should have and that, even if they did make any mistakes, they learned a valuable lesson from them, just as all of their suffering has served to teach them valuable lessons about life and themselves.

It seems peculiar that we still have this idea of happiness when, in the 21^st century, where most people in a first-world country have access to plenty of material goods, safety and comfortable living standards, yet at the same time depression, anxiety and general mental health problems are an epidemic. Most millennials nowadays have either experienced or come across mental health problems in close friends or family members, despite having been brought up in conditions that, to people from les privileged countries or other periods throughout history, would seem idyllic. This seems paradoxical to many people, so much so that its common to hear unhappy people or those who are suffering referred to as `ungrateful`, `self-cantered`, `careless`, `arrogant` and everything else under the sun for committing the crime of not recognizing how lucky they truly are. Is it not possible though, that the cause of these issues lye in our modern perceptions of life and happiness? Can all of these cases of depression, anxiety and low self esteem be the cause of selfishness, vanity and arrogance?

What philosophy taught me about language

Language is one of those rudimentary aspects of life that we often don't think about. We use it all the time on a daily basis; reading a book, sending a text, asking what's for dinner, chatting to a friend or writing a school report are just some of the mundane instances when we use language without even thinking about it. For this reason, when people do end up talking about language the conversation tends to be focused around how many languages someone can speak, how we've forgotten all of the French we learned at school or how we've never gotten round to learning that second language we bought those grammar books for about 4 years ago. Even those of us that have taken the time to learn a language -whether that's our mother tongue in more depth or a totally new language- tend to learn how to use and understand a language, not get to know language itself and what it actually is. 

For this reason, I was surprised to find that, whilst studying a modern language degree, it was actually developing an interest in philosophy that really enhanced my knowledge of language in general and how it works. Of course, studying Spanish has allowed me to improve my grammar, widened my vocabulary and developed my communication skills, yet it seems that it is philosophy that has really helped me to understand what the thing I'm learning about actually is. As odd as this may sound at first, it actually makes a lot of sense -we are generally always better at using something when we understand the mechanics behind it and the purpose it was developed for, and language is no exception. 

It is, however, quite easy to see why not many people bother to delve this deep into language: we can all use it to a sufficient degree to get us through daily life, we all understand that languages are the way humans communicate with each other and we are aware that reading books, opening a dictionary or taking classes in a language are effective methods when it comes to enhancing our linguistic skills. So what more do we actually need to know? Why does anyone need to find out about obscure and abstract concepts related to philosophy? These are some examples of the most important things that philosophy has taught me about language (so far) and overall I wold say taht the primary benefit of this knowledge is that it has taught me to appreciate language far more than I did and to value the role it plays in our lives and what it can tell us about our societies. 

First,y, there is the question of what we actually do with language, a question that would understandably be overlooked by most people. To most of us it seems quite obvious that language is simply the means we use to communicate different things to each other; one simply has to say "my head hurts" to inform those around them that they are suffering from a headache and request aid and sympathy, or exclaim "look at that!" When they see something interesting or exciting. Words play the simple role of allowing us to communicate what we experience to one another and interact in a coherent manner with those around us. 

But languages are highly developed and sophisticated systems that have been designed over long periods of time, within which a diverse range of methods can be found, each one aimed at expressing different elements of our thoughts and experiences. In fact, there is even some controversy over what it is that words actually do. For many, we perceive language as a tool which is used to refer to specific things. Each word in any language matches up with an object, so when we see a cow, we are taught to say 'cow', when we see an apple, we are taught that the word 'Apple' matches that specific physical object. However, some philosophers are not content with this understanding of how words work and have developed concepts that, in their eyes, better explain the meaning that exists behind a word. 

Ludwig Wittgenstein is probably best known for his thoughts regarding language. He believed that most of us don't fully understand what language is and what it actually does for us. This, he said, has been causing major problems for philosophers throughout the centuries, preventing them from reaching their goals. The problem, according to Wittgenstein, is the traditional idea that each word in a language matches up with a specific object or thing, when this isn't necessarily the case. Words, instead of having specific, unchangeable meanings are actually given their value solely by the way we use them. Take the word 'game' for example. Although we may think at first that it this word has a specific meaning, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that most of the things we refer to as games don't actually have a concrete set of characteristics that automatically make them a game. What they possess is a family resemblance. 

Let's look at some examples. We may say that a game is something with a set of rules, a perfectly valid statement that is backed up by games like football, tennis, chess, or scrabble. However, when we see children playing imaginary games nobody would deny that they are playing a sort of game, but does this game have a set of rules? We could say then, that a game is something that has a winner or a looser, but once again we find that there are counter-examples to disprove us. Biologists are particularly familiar with these families of resemblance. Take mammals, they are commonly defined as being animals that breath air, give birth to live young and are warm blooded. The platypus, however, is well known for laying eggs and also being venomous -another characteristic we wouldn't associate with mammals, he still, nonetheless, has been categorised as a mammal, why? Because his other attributes mostly resemble those of mammals. 

Who then, makes decisions like this when it comes to language in general? Well, we do. The native speakers of a language share the tools it provides to suit the particular needs of their context. So words are prescribed to different concepts and ideas that are recognised within particular communities, making them representative of the people and places they come from. This may seem odd to many, as we generally assume that language is a universal tool which, despite having a varied range of forms, can always be united when someone is capable of finding the equivalent words in their own language. This is often not the case though, as many languages are made up of words and phrases that are intrinsically linked with ideas and concepts belonging to the community they come from. 

This problem never ceases to trouble translators and those who use translated material. Take the Greek word eudimonia. This word is commonly translated into English as 'happiness' despite the fact that most of those who understand its meaning dispute this popular interpretation. The reason for which the poorer translation is commonly used is due to the fact that there isn't really any labelled concept acknowledged in our 21st century culture that matches up with eudimonia. The closest and most accurate translations used are words like 'fulfilment' and 'flourishing'. The reason for this is simply that eudimonia isn't something you can achieve by curling up on the sofa with a hot chocolate and enjoying a day of your favorite movies. Nor have you achieved a state of eudimonia if you have a nice car, a big house and an amazing partner just because your parents could afford to provide it all for you. 

No, eudimonia is a process that takes time, effort, tears, sweat and blood. If you want to achieve eudimonia you must reach your full potential in all aspects of life: emotional and economic stability through discipline and self control, social status, intellectual ability, physical strength, professional achievements, the family you have set up and your life experiences all play an important role in achieving a state of eudimonia. This type of satisfaction goes far beyond being where you want or getting what you want, it's also about knowing what you have achieved as an individual and how you have fully utilised your own capacities, as well as the resources you have available to reach a certain point in life. Someone who has reached a eudimonic state will not look back on their life and say 'I wish I...' 'I should have...' 'Why didn't I...' Even if they didn't quite achieve a particular goal or missed out on something, this person is fully aware that they deserve their place in life and that their experiences -both good and bad- have played a part in developing their character and making them a better person, providing them with a wholesome, complete life in which they have reached their potential as an individual.

These unfamiliar concepts aren't just found in ancient languages and texts, one could just as easily encounter them in a 21st century text from a European country. 'Duende', for example, when translated from Spanish seems to be some sort of elf, grown or mystical being, but to the southern people of Andalusia duende is the dark spirit that inhabits flamenco and truly good bullfighters who perform with grace and elegance. This spirit is said to be dark and haunting, often being expressed most purely by those who are linked in some way with death, pain suffering and despair. Yet when expressed in Spanish arts like flamenco or even in literature, duende has a deep and powerful effect on those who witness it in person, an effect that isn't happiness or sadness, simply greatness and profundity which can often seem very beautiful in the moment. This concept simply doesn't seem to exist in English, it's just a bit too passionate in that quintessentially  Mediterranean way for us to grasp. Trying to describe it in one paragraph is pretty brave so it is interesting to see how different English speaking authors get the idea a across; they certainly never find a single word to express the idea, that's for sure. 

When thinking about logic we often turn our thoughts towards mathematics, nonetheless, language too revolves around a set of rules which are based around logic. This is apparent in Immanuel Kant’s famous sentence, “I think, therefore I am.” The essential meaning behind this phrase can easily be understood by breaking down the sentence to its building blocks. The predicate in this sentence, “think” must be linked to a subject of some sort, that subject is “I”. The philosophy behind “I think, therefore I am” can be understood when we recognise that the thinking (action) requires a cause, “I am”, thus implying that the fact that he was thinking inevitably implies that he is also being. Descartes` philosophy is supported by the logic that the verb “think” requires a subject to carry it out and that thinking is being carried out by “I”, thus proving his theory that despite having doubted pretty much everything -even the existence of the physical world we perceive around us- he could not doubt his own existence.

Ripped from its original context, Descartes` phrase may sound a little peculiar, but for all those feeling a little confused about the whole idea a little bit of background research on Descartes` Meditations should put the iconic sentence into perspective. My point is simply that the logic behind the philosophical meaning of this sentence is directly correlated with the logic on which the sentence is constructed in linguistic terms. Recognising this link between the foundations of language and those of some philosophical concepts enables us to manoeuvre ourselves through these concepts effortlessly and without the general strain that might put many people off trying the grasp them in the first place. Understanding the logic on which the rules and systems used in mathematics us highly beneficial to all those who practice these disciplines (everyone) as well as philosophers, whom, like everyone else, makes use of language and mathematics and will be able to utilise them to prove his ideas coherently and effectively if he has a true understanding of how they work.

I am highly aware that this short text has hardly scratched the surface of the concepts and ideas mentioned, this is because I myself am still only just scratching the surface of them. So I must apologise to all those who do truly understand these matters in more depth for the frustration I must clearly have caused by putting together such a poor evaluation of matters they have spent so much time and effort researching and understanding. Nonetheless, I hope that I have highlighted the true value of language to humanity and that anyone interested in learning a language should also consider the importance of getting to know about language itself. Not only does understanding a language (including your own) in more depth let you understand and communicate with more clarity, it can also provide a deep insight into the societies, communities and individuals that use them.