Happiness and Pants

Will Wilkinson is reading books again, this time about happiness and paradox and why we’re no happier if we’re so much better off. I’d make comments as to his substantive points, but I don’t have any. Instead, I’m going to tangent off this:

Because happiness is just one of the good things that makes a life go well, not the thing that makes a life go well. Being happy is like having a good pair of shoes. They'll take you lots of places. But you still need somewhere to go. And you still need pants.

Really, doesn’t the correct choice of destination remove the need for pants? Or shoes, for that matter? I mean, yes, you’d be pantsless and barefoot, but in some places that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I go pantsless and barefoot around YPS Manor frequently. There’s no real need to put on shoes and pants just to get ice cream out of the fridge at 2 in the morning, which arguably improves my happiness. I think his metaphor for shoes and pants is somewhat flawed.

Honestly, I think I just wanted to use the word pantsless. A more substantive comment might be that happiness is a result of a life going well, not the inverse. If I felt like being even more substantive, I'd point out that material well-being has never been considered a prerequisite for happiness. Why is the failure of happpiness to pervade our lives just because we have stuff particularly noteworthy or paradoxical?

Pantsless!