Jadi, saya kemarin-kemarin baca novel yang namanya The Geography of Bliss, karangan Eric Weiner. Bukunya semacam gabungan travelogue sama pursuit of happiness yang isinya menceritakan dimana ia pergi ke berbagai tempat yang menurut science of happiness (Data-based criteria) itu tempat-tempat yang most happy, average, dan not happy. Disitu juga diceritain apa yang membuat tempat itu “Menyenangkan” (dan tidak, untuk unhappy places)
Dan di prolog buku tersebut, tertulis :
The search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness.
Padahal, buku itu tentang the search of happiness. Gimana ga tertarik. Impossible to put down, serius.
Di bukunya, Eric Weiner pergi ke 10 tempat, yaitu Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Bhutan, Qatar, Moldova, England, India, Thailand, dan America. Disana dia ketemu orang-orang lokal dan dia menginterview mereka.
Buku ini bener-bener bikin gue mikir apa itu kebahagiaan? dan, karena ada 10 tempat yang dia datangi, minimal ada 10 jawaban yang berbeda. minimal.
happiness is not provoking envy in others.
happiness is absence of misery.
Source of happiness di setiap tempat pun berbeda, jelas. Misal, untuk Netherlands, kebahagiaan di tempat tersebut adalah freedom. Dimana orang bisa bebas melakukan apapun. Ganja, Alkohol, Seks, misalnya. Sedangkan di Bhutan, kebahagiaan adalah mengikuti ajaran Buddha untuk mengumpulkan karma baik sebanyak-banyaknya. Menjadi “biasa saja”, gitu. Di Moldova, negara bekas perang, kebahagiaan adalah uang. Karena Moldova adalah negara yang miskin.
satisfaction, is never dipping below a certain floor, but never touching the ceiling. Moderation, even in moderation.
Kita juga diberikan Qatar, negara maju, multinasional yang sangat kaya, tapi tak memiliki kultur. India, negara yang memiliki kultur, tetapi memiliki ketimpangan dalam sisi ekonomi, di satu sisi, kaya, dan di sisi lain, miskin.
Jadi, muncul pertanyaan :
Is happiness, like politics, local?
Selain itu, karena basis dari pencarian ini adalah science, buku ini juga mempresentasikan data-data kebahagiaan.
Extroverts are happier than introverts; married people than singles, though those with children are not; republicans than democrats; those who attend religious services than those who do not; those with college degrees than those without, though those with
advanced degrees are not; those with an active sex life than those without. Men and Women are equally happy, though woman have a wider emotional range; having affair will make you happy, but won’t compensate for the loss that you incur when you’re found out and left; people are least happy when they’re commuting to work; busy people are happier than those with too little to do; those who are wealthy are happier than those who are poor, though only slightly. Then what? should we get married, but don’t have kids? going to religious services? drop out of that PhD program? Not so fast, there’s this thing called “reverse causality”. For instance, healthy people are happier than unhealthy ones; or is it healthy people tend to be happier? married people are happy, or is it those who are happy are more likely to get married?
Panjang untuk dibaca, mungkin. Inti dari text diatas : apakah orang yang bahagia akan mendapatkan sesuatu yang lebih, atau orang yang mendapat sesuatu yang lebih akan bahagia?
Entahlah, tapi, jika ada sesuatu yang saya dapatkan dari buku ini, yaitu Paradise is a moving target. Iya, ga ada yang namanya kebahagiaan yang konstan. Kebahagiaan memiliki parameter tertentu yang harus dipenuhi. Sebuah tempat juga ga bisa menjadi paradise untuk selamanya. Paradise made easy itu… tak berguna. Paradise is an achievement.
Paradise comes with its own inherent pressures. It screams : “be happy, god damn it!”
Happiness requires livable conditions, but not paradise. We humans are imminently adaptable. We survived an Ice Age. We can survive anything. We find happiness in a variety of places and places can change. Any atlas of bliss must be etched in pencil.
“A lifetime of happiness! no man could bear it : it would be hell on Earth”
Sebenernya, ini juga philosophical view sih, namanya Hedonism. Tapi seperti banyak kata lain, yang pada zaman sekarang artinya diubah abis-abisan.
Hedonism is a view where pleasure and pain is the important element of life. Pleasure is valuable, and Pain is not. Not limited to material things, but also mental phenomena, pleasurable and painful events, and so on.
Jadi, kalo kamu suka spend money, kalo kamu tidak bahagia karena itu, itu cuma foya-foya, bukan ngehedon, kalau bahasa anak sekarang mah. Tapi, kalau kamu bahagia, dengan cara apapun, bukan cuma spend money itu baru disebut ngehedon. Nah, ada yang namanya hedonic treadmill.
Hedonic treadmill, much like a regular treadmill, it makes you sweat. Unlike regular treadmill however, the hedonic variety is definitely not good for your health. it will drive you nut. what was once enjoyable was no longer so, the infinite cycle of pleasure and adaptation.
Gampangnya, kamu makan eskrim coklat di toko A, ternyata toko B lebih enak, kamu bakal ke toko B terus dong, ngapain ke toko A? orang toko B lebih enak, dan nanti muncul toko C, toko D, and so on. Ini contoh materialistiknya. repetisi antara kesenangan dan adaptasi untuk mencari tingkat kesenangan yang lebih tinggi.
Kalau begitu, apa sih, bahagia? absence of misery? comfortness?
we equate happiness with comfort, but is there really any connections? is there a point where excess comfort actually dilutes our contentment? for example, is it possible for a hotel to be too nice? What happens to a person’s soul when he/she indulges in excessive, obscene amounts of craven luxury?
Also, Comfort is best when interspersed with moment of great discomfort.
Oh, selain itu, ditulisin juga kalau ternyata uang berpengaruh terhadap kebahagiaan, dengan batas tertentu.
Susah ya, bahagia? Jangan pesimis.
Mungkin banyak teori-teori yang wah. Tapi, itu semua cuma teori. Pertanyaan tentang kebahagiaan juga banyak karena kebahagiaan adalah sesuatu yang abstrak bagi manusia. Tapi, dari semua pertanyaan itu cuma satu yang relevan sama kehidupan personal kita, Are you happy, or not? Itu doang, kan?
You can have a disease and not know it, but you cannot be happy without knowing it. By definition, if you’re happy, you know it. When a person says that he is pretty happy, one has no right to ignore his statement, or interpret it to mean the opposite.
but note that man’s capacity for self-deception is not to be underestimated.
So, are you happy, or not?
Quote terakhir dari buku ini :
“just keep on smiling. Even when you’re sad. Keep on smiling.” Not a most profound advice, but wise. Only a fool or a philosopher would make sweeping generalizations about the nature of happiness. I am no philosopher, but here goes : Money matters, but less than we think and not in the way that we think. Family is important, so as friends. Envy is toxic, so is excessive thinking. Beaches are optional, trust is not. Neither is gratitude. To venture any further, though, is to enter treacherous waters. A slippery seal, happiness is. There’s more than one path to happiness. It’s worth considering carbon, the basis of all life, happy and otherwise. Carbon is also a chameleon atom. Assemble it one way–tight, interlocking rows–and you have a diamond. Assemble it another way–disorganized jumble–and you have a handful of soot. Arranging makes all the difference. Places are the same, it’s not the elements that matter so much as how they’re arranged in which proportions. Getting the balance right is important, a perfect, happy arrangement. It makes all the difference.
And me, I’m not 100-percent happy. Closer to fifty-fifty. All things considered, that’s not so bad. No, not bad at all.