02.10.

2017

The Art of living. An interdisciplinary approach.

Lecture 1
Form and evaluation:
 Evaluation – multiple choice test covering issues discussed during the lecture as well as essential
reading (only one correct answer)
Essential reading:
 Peterson, C. (2006). The values in action (VIA) Classification of Strengths (…)
 Schwartz, B., Sharpe, K. E. (2006) Practical Wisdom (…)
 Evans, J. (2012). Philosophy for Life: And Other Dangerous Situations. (Chapters 1 – 4)
Additional reading for Institute of Applied Psychology:
 Evans, J. (2012) Philosophy for Life: And Other Dangerous Situations. Rider Books.
(Remaining chapters without “Extracurricular Appendices”)

Socrates, or what is the art of living?

Who was Socrates?
 Greek philosopher, living in 5th century Athens
 The paradigm of the philosopher (first philosopher, who was concerned about the human life)
 The paradigm of philosophical life and death (he was asking questions about expertise, for
example he would ask an officer about courage – in the end he became aware that the man was
not an expert; Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth; he committed a suicide)
Socratic elenchus:
“The basic structure of a typical elenchus is simple. Socrates asks a question, either a request to be told
what some virtue is … or some other questions about a virtue. The interlocutor affirms some proposition
p in answer to Socrates’ initial questions; under Socrates’ questioning he agrees that he also believes q
and r; and he discovers, under further questioning, that not-p can be derived from q and r; hence he finds
that his beliefs commit his to p and not-p (…) and so he concludes that they (interlocutors) are ‘all alike at
a loss’” (Irwin, 1995)
 Socrates was aware of his lack of knowledge and his interlocutors weren’t.
 Early – elennctic – dialogues like Laches, Ion, Euthyphro (the later Socrates’ dialogues are more
Plato’s theories)
Socrates’ Question:
The analysis by B. Williams (1985).
 Socrates’ Question – How should one live?
“Socrates’ question is the best place for moral philosophy to start. It is better that ‘what is our duty’ or;
how may we be good?’ or even ‘how can we be happy?’ Each of these questions takes too much for
granted, although not everyone will agree about what that is”.
 Interpretation: all the other questions are biased (duty, goodness) – we shouldn’t presume it in the
beginning; Socrates’ question is broad and open, doesn’t suggest an answer, it is general
 The analysis of the question:
1. The generality – “something relevant or useful can be said to anyone, in general” (cf. “what shall
I do?”)
2. It is “anybody’s question… the question can be put to anybody… That seems to ask for the
reasons we all share for leaving in one way rather than another. It seems to ask for the conditions
for the good life – the right life, perhaps, for human beings as such”
3. The lack of immediacy – “it is not immediate; it is not about what I should do now, or next. It is
about a manner of life… about a whole life” (how to make our life a piece of art?)
4. Socrates’ question is - “entirely noncommittal, and very fruitfully so, about the kinds of
consideration to be applied to the question” (nothing is presumed about morality having a specific
place, so not a specific situation, but life as a whole; any kind of reason can be a good reason)
5. Reflective character – “it is a general question about what to do … in a sense, a timeless question,
since it invites me to think about my life from no particular point in it” (it is an invitation to
deliberate, how do we cultivate our life?)

 The unexamined life is not worth living:

“Socratic reflection certainly takes us somewhere. Reflection involves some commitment” – Socrates;
thought was “that the good life must have reflection as a part of its goodness: the unexamined life, as he
put it, is not worth living”  It is our rationality that is distinguished as human.

The technical conception of philosophy. Philosophy as a kind of techne.

 Techne – art, craft, expertise, skill
 Philosophy as an art concerned with ones life (techne peri ton bion) – so philosophy is a skill that
concerns about life.
 “The Art of living. The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy” (Sellars, 2009)
The Socratic roots of the analogy.
 Apology, Alcibiades I, Gorgias
 The comparison between philosophy and gymnastics
 Philosophy – as a kind of techne – is “an activity quidded by knowledge (episteme) of its subject
matter … something that can be taught and learned, that an expert will be able to give an
explanation or rational account (logos) of what he is doing, and that proficiency will require a
certain amount of training and practice (askesis)” (Sellars, 2009)
Explanation. In order to become a good doctor it is good to have knowledge (episteme), but most of all
you need the training (askesis).

A very brief history of the idea.

Alexander the Great, was said to have destroyed the idea of the institutions, rulers – so people started
believing in individuality, that one can trust only the other or in oneself. His empire started the era of -
Stoics, Epicureans , Skeptics – whom are examples of Hellenistic philosophy. Alexander the Great
approached …??? and said, “stand out of my sun”. Alexander the Great was trying to change the world, to
be happy, so he was trying to change the external conditions.
 “Empty are the words of that philosopher who offers therapy for no human suffering. For just as
there is no use in medical expertise if it does no give therapy for bodily diseases, so too there is
no use in philosophy if it does not expel the suffering of the soul”
 “It is not true that there exists an art called medicine, concerned with the diseased body, but no
corresponding art concerned with the diseased soul. Nor is it true that the latter is inferior to the
former, in its theoretical grasp and therapeutic treatment of individual cases” (SVF III) 
medical module of philosophy
 “There is, I assure you, a medical art of the soul. It is philosophy, whose aid need not be sought,
as in bodily diseases, from outside ourselves (…)”
 “Being a lover or humanity, the Skeptic wishes to heal by argument, insofar as possible, the
arrogant empty beliefs and the rashness of dogmatic people” (Skeptics – we shouldn’t make any
dogmatic claims)
The Stoic elaboration of the analogy.
1. Medicine – complex theoretical knowledge and clearly practical orientation at the same time
(Sellars, 2009)
2. The analogy “appears to offer an excellent model for a conception of philosophy involving both
complex theory (logos) and practical exercise (askesis) directed towards the transformation of
one’s life (bios)” (Sellars, 2009)
3. Askesis – exercise of training (in order to be a good philosopher, you need to train and practice)
The later vicissitudes of the idea.
In Medieval ages it started to be believed that, when we ask the question “how we should live our lives” it
was reduced to religion.
5 examples of philosophers who stayed truthful to the idea of the real philosophy: Montaigne, Spinoza,
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein.
13.11.2017
Lecture 6
The philosophical context of the distinction

happiness

Positive
Psychology

Subjective Objective
hedonistic Aristotle
SWB Eudaimonia

The modern viewpoint:

 Hedonistic theories
 Ancients are not experts at their own well-being (we believe that we are the best experts on our
issues)
Dan Haybron: personal authority assumption, no experts are needed to know what’s good for yourself, all
that is needed is liberty and resources (the characteristics might be lacking)

The philosophical context of the distinction – the modern viewpoint

 Two claims involved into the PA assumption:
(1) Transparency – “well-being is relatively transparent to individuals: what’s good for a person is
relatively easy for that individual to discern; our interests are not opaque to us” (Haybron, 2008)
For example: I have a problem with my computer, so I need to go to a specialist to help me fix it.
(2) Aptitude – “people typically have the psychological endowments needed to choose well given the
broad ability to live as they wish, with a rich array of options, that liberals have traditionally
favored” (Haybron, 2008)

The expectancy-value approach: “well-being is a function of expecting to attain (and ultimately

attaining) the outcomes one values, whatever those might be” (Ryan, Deci, 2001) – that’s the approach
that majority of people share.
 For example: I want to see Michael Jordan playing, so what do I need to do? Go to USA and buy
tickets to his game and attend it.
 What is crucial – the things that we desire are attainted. People are depicted here as black cards,
tabula rasa – we are born without desires, but later (social conditioning) we start to believe that
we need certain things, and in order to be happy I need those things.
A relativistic, postmodern view: “the goal through which well-being is enhanced can be highly
idiosyncratic and culturally specific” (Ryan, Deci, 2001)
 There is no connection between our desires and human nature (it might happen that only one
person in the world believes that he/she needs such things, so we need to help that person get it)
 There are no criteria whether our desires our appropriate

Subjective well-being is especially well suited for proud liberal defendants.

For example – there is an election – what would be the best promise to get the highest number of votes?
The answer is - finances, money, because we can buy whatever we want, it is unbiased, it is democratic in
a sense (as an anecdote – in India the gross well-being is promised).

Subjective well-being. “(…) also is popular because it is particularly democratic – it grants respect to
what people think and feel about their lives. People are not content to have experts evaluate their lives;
they believe that their opinions matter” (Diener, Lucas, Oishi, 2002)
 It is especially well suited for our democratic approach

“Eudaimonic theories maintain that not all desires – not all outcomes that a person might value – would
yield well-being when achieved. Even though they are pleasure producing, some outcomes are not good
for people and would not promote wellness. Thus, from the eudaimonic perspective, subjective happiness
cannot be equated with well-being” (Ryan, Deci, 2001)
 The idea of what is good for us should be broader than just pleasure (for example – my desire of
cookies will bring me happiness and pleasure but they won’t give me well-being in the long run)
 It is the liberal sensibility that is well fit to the subjective well-being (for example – we believe
that whatever kind of desires we have, we should try to achieve them)

Psychological research on two meanings of happiness

The research of Allan Waterman (1993):
What was he was studying?
(1) Eudaimonia as (feeling of) personal expressiveness (PE)
(2) Hedonic enjoyment (equivalent of subjective well-being SWB)
2 studies (458 students) – he asked people whether they are developing their own potential? If they said
“yes” – he told them that they have personal expressiveness, if the answer was negative – they lacked PE.
The results:
(1a) Correlation between eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment (r1 = 0.74, r2= 0.82)
(1b) Eudaimonia usually leads to hedonic enjoyment (but not another way around; it is a better bet to
follow eudaimonia than pleasure)
(2a) Eudaimonia’s correlation with self-fulfilling actions is stronger than hedonic enjoyment’s one
(self-fulfilling are those actions that make you realize your potential and becoming ourselves vs hedonic
enjoyment actions are those kind of actions which we undertake in order to feel pleasure).
 Self-fulfilling actions should boost our eudaimonia vs hedonic enjoyment should boost our
pleasure and enjoyment
 If we have self-fulfilling actions on one hand and hedonic enjoyment actions on the other – we
feel self-expressed, it works by theory and empirically.
(2b) Hedonic enjoyment’s correlation with drives satisfying actions is NOT stronger than eudaimonia’s
one (?!)
 Self-fulfilling actions are a better investment (eudaimonia and same amount of pleasure)
(3a) Eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment relate to cognitive-affective state’s aspects differently
(4a) Eudaimonia’s relationship with the phenomena of flow (challenge + skill) is stronger than hedonic
enjoyment’s one
 The level of challenge (difficulty of the task, the more difficult it is, the more of a challenge it is)
 Skill (for example if the challenge is difficult and we lack skills – anxiety)
 We need good attachment (good fit between challenge and the skill – the right level of challenge
that equals the level of our skills)
 It is the self-fulfilling actions that give us flow rather than hedonic enjoyment
(5a) Eudaimonia’s relationship with the importance of an activity is stronger than hedonic enjoyment’s
one
 Only if we believe that what we are doing is important

Hedonic enjoyment: (what people said in the tests)

I do feel: relaxed, excited, content, happy, in harmony with my surroundings, I lose track of time, I forget
my personal problems
I do not feel: angry, restless, anxious, confused, self-conscious

Eudaimonia: (what people said in the test)

I invest a great deal of effort
I feel concentrated, competent and assertive
I know how well I am
I have clear goals
I feel challenged

Other psychological researches on the meanings of happiness:

King and Napa (1998) - folk concept of the good life involves:
a) Happiness
b) Meaning in life (money is relatively unimportant)
Compton (2001) – factor analysis yields three-factor structure of psychological well-being:
a) SWB
b) Personal growth
c) Religiosity as other-centeredness and self-renunciation
Compton’s theory is analogical to what Seligman said in the TED-talk.

The critique of the distinction

Todd B. Kashdan and coworkers (2008):
He believes that empirical data provided by Waterman and others are not sufficient.
 “The existence of separate factors does not provide evidence of qualitatively distinct types of
well-being” (Kashdan, 2008)
 Waterman (1993) – correlation between eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment (r1=0.74 and
r2=0.82) – the correlations are much stronger than the ones below (these are two things; aspects
of the same thing)
 Cf.SWB: LS and PA (4=0.42-0.52), LS and NA (r=-0.30-0.52), PA and NA (from 0.03 to -0.36)
 (about Waterman) “re-examining these results we remain unconvinced that they provide support
for two qualitatively different types of well-being)
 “the arbitrary and unsupported demarcation between the components of SWB and eudaimonia”
 The proposal of referring to exact constructs being studied

The measurement of subjective happiness

The short story of subjective happiness.
(1) Aristippus from Cyrene (it is mainly pleasure that makes us happy)
(2) Hedonism in Plato’s dialogues – “Gorgias and Protagoras” (in those dialogues we find
ideas that good and evil can be identified by pleasure and pain; Plato wasn’t a hedonist)
 “then does it seem to you, my friends, as Protagoras and I assert, that the onlhy reason why these
things are evil is that they end at last in pains, and deprive us of other pleasures? Would they
admit this” (Protagoras)
 “for you have admitted that it is from defect of knowledge that men err, when they do err, in their
choice of pleasures and pains – that is, in the choice of good and evil; and from defect not merely
of knowledge but of the knowledge which you have now admitted also to be that of
measurement”
The measurement – should I drink two bottles of wine today? – it will give me pleasure today but it will
give me pain tomorrow. Pleasures and pains can be measured.
(3) Epicurus hedonism.
(4) “the Utilitarians were the intellectual forerunners of subjective well-being researchers,
focusing on the emotional, mental, and physical pleasures and pains that individuals
experience” (Diener, Lucas, Oishi, 2002)
 The utilitarianism – (1) how should we react that only pleasure is good and the pain is bad – we
should create a word which the sum of pleasure is the highest and the pains is the lowest, (2) the
pleasure is the most important

Jeremy Bentham and the felicific calculus:

 The aim of a calculus – “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of
right and wrong” (Bentham, “Greatest Happiness Principle”, 1998)
 The variables included in the felicific calculus – intensity, duration, certainty of its coming
about, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity (likelihood of producing further pleasure and pain),
purity
“Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure – such marks in pleasures and in pains endure. Such
pleasures seek if private be thy end; if it be public, wide let them extend. Such pains avoid, whichever be
thy view; if pains must come, let them extend to few” (Bentham, 1970).
 Utilitarianism always very appealing to politicians !! – utilitarians provided “decision making
theory” with mathematical measures to use, how to check whether the system/reform is working?
Giving the points ?
For example – “should the lecturer sing during the lecture?” – the balance of pleasure vs pain?

Jeremy Bentham vs John Stuart Mill (quantitative vs qualitative)

Quantitative Qualitative
Pleasures differ only in quantity Pleasure (may) differ in quality

The felicific calculus can be applied by everybody The real value of pleasure can be estimated only
by people appropriately qualified (the ones
experienced in higher pleasures)

Plato vs drinking beer?

Some pleasure requires cultivation to be able to appreciate it. For example – classical music, some pieces
are easy, so everyone can sort of enjoy them, but other ones are more complex, so not everybody can
appreciate them and admire them (not everybody is a connoisseur).

20.11.2017
The contemporary (psychological) measurement of SWB:
 Early 20th century – the beginnings of the empirical studies of SWB
 Flugel (1925) – an early experience sampling method
 After the II World War – pools with simple global survey questionnaires (“How happy are you?”,
the response from “very happy” to “not very happy”) – single item measurement (those
measurements are still useful, reliable etc.)
An artificial example of an “experience sampling method”: If I ask about happiness on a 10-point scale of
happiness – the day would seem happier when the day is more beautiful, we are not asking about the
temporary mood, but about satisfaction of your life. We cannot really control the moment when we are
asking the question, but what we can do is – we can apply an “experience sampling method” – for
example everybody gets a phone, and the lecturer sends a question every day “how happy are you at the
moment?” – I can calculate the average (1), I can identify a pattern if I ask about what that person is
doing at the moment (2)  the person can be less happy working, happier while spending time with
friends.
 Diener’s (1984) review of then results

Methods currently applied:

a) One-item instruments
b) Multi-item questionnaires – e.g. the five-item Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)
c) Experience sampling method (the momentary level)
d) Methods based on memory (for example – recall as many positive/negative memories that you
can – one number divided by the other number = expression of the overall happiness)
e) Informant reports (asking parents, partners, teachers, friends etc.; third-person perspective)
The representors of positive psychology agree that we are able to measure happiness.

The controversies connected with the methodology:

“For the first time, we are able to measure happiness.” (Biswas-Diener, Diener, Tamir, 2004)
 The application of self-report – self-report measures converge with other types of assessment
(Sandvik, Diener, Seidlitz, 1993)
Transparency – when we ask somebody about happiness we believe that, that person is able to reflect, but
this persons’ judgement is biased, that’s why it’s good to have the third-person perspective.
E.g. Couple therapy – the reports are different, they diverge.
 What does it mean to “measure happiness”? – the possibility of intra-individual and inter-
individual comparison
The problem with measuring happiness. It’s impossible to “take out” one’s happiness and we are unable
to compare it to somebody else’s. Measuring happiness is not that straight forward as for physical objects.

www.worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl ?

20.11.2017
Lecture 7
Who is a happy person?
Subjective well-being (SWB) the aspects:
3 dependent variables.
(1) PA – high positive affect
(2) NA – low negative affect
(3) LS – life satisfaction

Independent variables taken into account

(1) External factors – demographic variables and life circumstances
(2) (Relatively permanent) Internal factors – personality (cf. genetic influences; what kind of person
we are; maybe some of us just by our personality and character are happier than other people 
genetic influences as a threat of determining that)
(3) Activity – intentionally undertaken acts (happiness depends on what we are doing)
Which factor is the most important?
(1a) Demographic variables.
 Age and sex – relationship which is weak and which depends on the SWB aspect studied
 Age – positive affect decreases, life satisfaction and negative affect without changes (Diener,
Suh, 1998)
 Sex – sometimes small differences in aspects; for example – women higher in negative and
positive affect, only the former effect was significant (Lucas and Gohm, 2000) - when it is
measured independently
(1b) SWB and income.
 Eurobarometer survey – highest quartile of income (86% of people satisfied), lowest quartile of
income (72% of people satisfied) – those people were asked about life satisfaction;
a) In both of these groups most of the people were happy (typical pattern in normal circumstances)
b) There is a difference but it is not very strong (moderate) – we need a further research
 Metaanlysis – 85 researches, the average correlation is 0,17 (Haring, Stock, Okun, 1984) – the
attempt to collect a lot of researches and come up with a conclusion
The relationship is not linear!
For example – we have 2 variables: SWB and money and we have different results – it is curvilinear.
Researches:
a) SWB and income - within one country (Gallup)
Happiness, enjoyment,
smiling, laughter
Lack of experiencing worry
or sadness
Lack of the feeling of
stressed out
When your basic needs are already met, when you get more money you get happier but not as much. It is
different in a situation when people’s needs are not met, and they are financially struggling and then they
get the money.

b) SWB – different countries compared with each other (Inglehart and others, 2008)
In the group of relatively poor countries, the increase of income = increase of happiness. When you live
in a country where you earn good money, more money doesn’t change happiness that much.

Individual countries are either above or below the statistic line. Some countries are more happy expected
on the income and some countries are less happy expected on the income (for example Hungary, they
earn more money than for instance Poland, but the people there are less happy).
[insert photo]

(2a) SWB and personality.

 Personality and happiness – similar formal features: they are established at early age, are
(relatively) stable in time, have a significant genetic component (see especially Lykken and
Tellegen, 1996)

Temperamental determinants of SWB (Diener et al., 2003):

Temperament as something inborn.
a) Base level of SWB (or “set points”; we all have a different level; some of us are happy or sad
without any reason)
b) Emotional reactivity
c) Cognitive processing of emotionally important information

Base level of subjective well-being:

 Headey and Wearing (1992) – extraversion increases the probability of getting married and
finding a high-status job
Extraverts are in a sense better in finding a better job due to their higher probability of being happier.
 Hedonic adaptation, hedonic treadmill (Brickmann and Campbell, 1971)
Hedonic treadmill – we have good events and bad events and they are changing our moods, after a while
we all come back to our set point. And people who are at default happy, will come back to their happy
being, and the melancholic people will go back to their sadness.

 The researches on brain lateralization

Pre-frontal cortex – default activity – asymmetry between the right and left side, we can calculate the
difference for each individual and the activity is higher in the left side (positive emotions). People who
are depressed have the right pre-frontal lobe more active.

Emotional reactivity:
 Tellegen (1985) and Larsen (Lusting, Larsen, 1997) – extravert people react stronger (than
introvert ones) to positive experience, neurotic people react stronger (than emotionally stable
ones) to negative experience
 Such results are obtained in the laboratory, but not in the everyday environment (Diener et al.,
2003). But many clinicals state the same (vicious loop)
Cognitive processing of emotionally important information:
 Rusting (1998) – emotional information which is congruent with personality attracts more
attention, is better processed, and is more easily memorized
 Derryberry and Read (1994) – extraverts pay attention to a rewarding stimulus for longer time
(than introverts)
For example – when somebody doesn’t answer us hello, and we are extraverts – we either not pay
attention, or we don’t even say hello in the first place because we don’t notice the familiar person. It’s the
opposite way for the introverts, when somebody doesn’t answer hello, introverts overthink about it.

Genetic determinants of subjective well-being

Minnessota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA):

 Initiated by T. Bouchard in 1979 (first survey published in Science in 1990)
 Lykken (1999) – 120 pairs of siblings and 3 groups of triplets (each person responded to about
15 000 questions)
Assessments by Lykken and Tellegen (1996)
 The comparison of the subjective well-being dimension of the MPQ (Multidimensional Persnality
Questionnaire) – 663 pairs of MZT and 69 pairs of MZA
 Correlations indicate that about 40-50% of the current SWB’s between people is connected with
genetic differences (at least as long as middle-class people are concerned). The heritability of on
individual SWB’s measurement is higher than 40% (Lykken, 1999) – momentary subjective well-
being, current situation.
 This result, however can be … underestimated! – our current SWB is highly dynamic due to the
circumstances
 Test-retest correlation (10 years span) for one sibling – 0.55 (substantial way of predicting how
happy you will be, by knowing how happy you are now)
 The correlation of one sibling’s result from the first measurement with his or her sibling’s result
from the second research (i.e. after 10 years) is 0.54
What does that mean?
“We know more about the SWB of one sibling on the basis of his/her sibling’s results 10 years ago than
we do on the basis of the former’s income, social and marital status”
 The heritability of the stable component of the SWB is about 0.54 : 0.55 i.e. nearly 100% !!
This would mean that the whole subjective well-being is determined by biology.
Richard Davidson and researches on affective style.
 The plasticity of the brain

Sonja Luybomirsky and the reassessment.

 She said that what we care about is subjective well-being that we feel here and now
3 kinds of influences:
(1) Genes (50%; similar to Lykken)
(2) External circumstances, life events (10%)
(3) Actions and thoughts (40%)
Youtube: “An experiment in gratitude – the science of happiness”
04.12.2017
Lecture 9
Character Strengths
The vertical classification scheme
Three levels of abstraction that can be utilised:
1. Virtues: refers to universal aspects of excellence which can be used as a means of solving the important
tasks necessary for survival of the species
 most general category
2. Character strengths: for any virtue we have different ways of enacting it an each way is a character
strength
 For example, wisdom may be displayed in creativity, curiosity, love of learning, open-
mindedness etc.
 The psychological ingredients that define the virtue (most direct and extensive)
3. Situational themes: specific habits that lead people to manifest given character strengths in given
situations

Defining character strength: a positive characteristic that satisfies most of the 10 criteria
1-5: Contributes to the good life, morally valued in its own right, does not diminish other people,
characteristic opposite to character strength cannot be phrased in a felicitous way, needs to be manifest in
the range of an individual’s behaviour
6-10: It is distinct form other positive traits, embodied in consensual paragons, it is possible to find the
case of prodigies with respect to it, possible to find case of people who show the total absence of it and
connected with institutions and rituals that have been provided by society
 The measurement of character strengths
 Signatures strength: exactly those strength which you are very good at
 Encouragement to cultivate those which you are good at

Wisdom
Why wisdom?? relatively developed psychological theory and research

 Disquieting suggestion of Alasdair MacIntyre: the actual world we inhabit the language of
morality is in the same state of grave disorder as a post-apocalyptic world
 Wanted to revolutionise virtue ethics in terms of contemporary social science
 Virtue ethics has been for some reason lost, it is being reconstructed by the survivors (the
eudaemonists)
 The creation of superficial science of human flourishing

Strengths of wisdom and knowledge:

Creativity
Curiosity
Open-mindedness
Love of learning
Perspective
 Perspective is crucial as it is called wisdom in a narrow sense
 Hence wisdom is both virtue and a character strength
 It is distinct from intelligence which is a superior level of knowledge, judgment and ability to
give advice
 Allows to address difficult questions about the conduct and meaning of life
 It goes for good and serves to others well-being

Hot intelligences: an ability to carry out abstract reasoning in the domain of hot information
Hot information: is information of direct personal relevance for survival or well-being

Humility: an accurate sense of our abilities and achievements (not connected with thinking we are worse
than we are)
 Connected with some features of our dealings with new information
 About seeing one’s abilities in perspective with low focus on the self
Modesty: moderate estimate of one’s merits and achievements, related to how we behave
Prudence: practical reasoning that helps to achieve one’s long term goals effectively
 Concern for the consequences, resist impulses, flexible and moderate approach, balance between
aims and means
Spirituality: persuasive, pervasive and stable beliefs and practices grounded in the conviction that there
is a transcendent dimension of life

The critique of the above account:

 Schwartz and Sharpe: the logical independence of virtues and strengths and identification of
one’s signature strength and its development
 Three problems while applying virtue: relevance, specificity and conflict
 The Aristotelian conception of phronesis: Nicomachean ethics as a classical source of ancient
virtue ethics
 Virtues of character vs. intellectual virtues
 Five kinds of intellectual capacities: stable dispositions concerned with truth (knowledge,
intellect, wisdom, art/craft, practical wisdom)
 Features of phronesis: intrinsic connection to action and particulars

18.12.2017
Lecture 11
Meditation and mindfulness
Mindfulness.
As a method (method of producing a special state) or as a trade (disposition).

An introductory exercise
Breathing meditation according to Jon Kabat – Zinn.
www. onlinemeditationtimer.com
Some information…
 “What you resist persists.” – let go of all the thoughts, don’t fight them but concentrate on the
breath.
 “Default mode system” (mind) – tends to wander everywhere but about the present time. It is
especially strong for Western people, it is because of the invitation to “doing” not just “being”
(there is something to be done, and there is nothing to be done, we need to seek for it).
 The game of thoughts is especially strong in some psychopathologies (thoughts about future or
about the past, like in depression, anxiety, in neurotic people)
 Insight meditation – just by focusing on what’s happening in our brain, we can recognize
particular patterns that repeat themselves (“it is not here already”, “it is not here yet” – so it either
happened in the past and we can’t control it and it is not here now, when we think about the
future, and maybe it will never be)
 It’s good to have a distance towards those intrusive thoughts (in insight meditation we have an
invitation for acceptance and realizing that we are not our thoughts)

What is mindfulness?
Mindfulness – sati (in Pali)
Awareness
Attention
Remembering
“The awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-
judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment to moment.” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003)
 It is intentional, it doesn’t “just” happen to us and it happens in a certain time with a special
attitude
The attitudes (Kabat-Zinn, 2013):
(1) Non-judging (observe, let the content of the mind just be, it is unproductive when we try to keep
the positive emotions or get rid of the negative during meditation)
(2) Patience (at least in the very beginning you will feel more pain than before starting; the reason of
all the activities or the massive amount of daily activities is to repress the pain or deal with
emotions – survival value)
(3) Beginner’s mind (mind which sees the thing as seen for the very first time, you are open to what
will happen)
(4) Trust (all this experience can be difficult, because all of us have a repository of issues, typically
we have a sophisticated set of techniques which helps us not to see it, but meditation is a sort of
“anti-technique”)
(5) Non-striving
(6) Acceptance
(7) Letting go
(5), (6), (7) – part of non-judgmental attitude, we shouldn’t try to keep it or get rid of it. CHANGE! We
are invited to meet and accept the change.
Sometimes (8) Gratitude and (9) Generosity added.

Two kinds of meditation:

(1) Focused attention (Samatha, both concentration and tranquility) – concentration meditation – “a
laser light beam, which illuminates whatever object to which it is directed” (Germer, 2005)
(2) Open monitoring – mindfulness meditation (Vipassana, observe whatever comes) – “searchlight
that illuminates a wilder range of objects as they arise in awareness, one at a time”
Insight meditation is Vipassana meditation.
In the beginning we need something simple, so that’s why we concentrate on the breath (it doesn’t expose
such big emotions at first).
Insight meditation (mindfulness) is directed at open monitoring, when in its advanced form.
Kabat-Zinn gives his students raisons at the beginning of their meditation to eat, so they can concentrate
on them instead on the thoughts.

I Stage. Concentrate on breathing

II Stage. Body scan meditation (from the toes to the head) – monitor the whole body.
III Stage. Environment stage (what’s happening in the environment)
IV Stage. Concentrate on thoughts (most difficult object of meditation; they tend to keep us or direct us in
positive or negative attitude)
08.01.2017
2 kinds of meditation:
(1) Focused attention – concentration meditation – “a lesser light beam, which illuminates
whatever object to which it is directed (both convention + inequality) – Somethe
(2) Open monitoring – Mindfulness Meditation – “see light that illuminates a wider range of
objects as they arise in awareness, one at time” – Vipassana
Mindfulness – history in the West:
 Freud – “oceanic feeling” in meditation as regressive experience; Eastern philosophy as “beyond
the limits of [his] nature”
 Alexander – “Buddhist Training as an Artificial Catatonia”
Freud and Alexander – mystic experience as a sign of a pathology.
 Much more favorable attitudes by Jung and Fromm – in majority of Jung’s books he discusses
this topic, Fromm – “The Buddhism Zen and Analysis”
 Late 1960s and counterculture (Beatles and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) – TM – transcendental
meditation - and Yoga – growing interest in everything Eastern (including the religions)
The Beatles (especially Lennon) were interested in the Eastern religion and the connections with M. M.
Yogi, they quickly diverted from Yogi. After that, Lennon devoted his life to family with Yoko Ono
(songs – “Watching Wheels”, “Beautiful Boy”).
 Herbert Benson (1975) uses meditation to treat heart disease – he was one of the first people who
started using meditation to treat people with cardiovascular diseases. No control studies had been
made to check whether meditation really helped or not.
 1977 – APA calls for an examination of the clinical effectiveness of meditation
 From concentration meditation (the early period – so – Freud, Alexander etc.) to mindfulness
(later)

MBSR program by Kabat-Zinn:

 Kabat-Zinn – the Centre for Mindfulness at the University of Massachusetts Medical Schools
(1979)
 Somatic clinical problems, those people suffered a lot of pain, and none of that pain could have
been reduced by any pain killers
(1) Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program – in 2004 completed by 15,000 people + 250
similar programs around the world
(2) 8-weeks workshop – weekly group meetings + one-day retreat + homework (about 45 minutes daily)
– at the very end you have one-day retreat where you practice mindfulness