What is happiness?

Here's a definition I've found useful when thinking about happiness:

Happiness is the experience of net positive feelings—pleasure outweighing pain.

That's it. I know how it reads. I know it sounds overly simplistic and even shallow for that matter. But to me what's beautiful about this definition is I can answer it. I can ask myself "am I experiencing pleasure?" and not get bogged down by philosophical interpretations or definitions about happiness, its source, expectations, etc. Pleasure is something I can measure more accurately.

I think the pushback against equating pleasure with happiness is a fear of hedonism and where that leads society, not against the equating itself. There are many things, some would call traps, that can generate instant pleasure: drugs, sex, food, etc. A common issue with these pleasures is not the experience or emotional thrill but the state it leaves the person. These pleasures are typically non-sustainable sources, and have a tendency to degrade a person from the viewpoint that said person is attempting to self-actualize or be better.

That said, what's fundamentally different, with regard to happiness, between a heroin addict and a monk achieving enlightenment? Are they not both seeking states of elevated pleasure? I know this comparison makes people uncomfortable - and there are obvious practical differences in sustainability and consequences - but if we're being honest about the core experience, aren't they both just different paths to the same destination? Our moral judgments about the method don't change the underlying nature of what's being sought. Just as a distasteful act of love is still love, a distasteful path to pleasure is still pleasure.

Here's where this definition becomes particularly useful: it's measurable. While we can't directly quantify units of pleasure, we can actually track the neurochemical states associated with positive feelings. When someone experiences pleasure - whether from meditation, achievement, or chemical stimulation - there are observable changes in brain chemistry. Dopamine, serotonin, endorphins - these aren't just metaphors, they're measurable indicators of our emotional state.

The definition becomes more interesting when we consider time. When someone asks if you're happy, they rarely specify the timeframe. Right now? This month? Your life? The heroin addict and the wire-headed brain optimize for immediate pleasure at the expense of long-term pain. Meanwhile, we praise the entrepreneur working 80-hour weeks for "delayed gratification" - but it's the same equation, just solved over a different timeframe.

What we call "meaning," "purpose," and "achievement" might just be sophisticated frameworks for managing these temporal tradeoffs. We've built entire moral philosophies around optimizing pleasure over time, then convinced ourselves these frameworks are somehow more noble than raw pleasure-seeking.

But strip away the intellectual pretense: The monk who achieves enlightenment, the athlete who wins gold, and the junkie who scores a fix are all experiencing the same fundamental thing - a favorable balance of neurochemicals. The only real difference is the sustainability and timeframe of their pleasure-pain trade.

I hate that I feel the need to clarify this, but no, wire-heading or using drugs are probably not your best bet at making you happy in the long-term. They'll do wonders in the short-term, but the interest payments on these are too high.