Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 9
Lesson 8: Is overcoming inner conflict the key to happiness?Is overcoming inner conflict the key to happiness?
In this wireless philosophy video, Tamar Gendler (Yale University) discusses the idea that the mind is divided into parts, and that conflict among these parts can be a major cause of unhappiness.
View our happiness learning module and other videos in this series here:
https://www.wi-phi.com/modules/happy/. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
[Music] Hi, I’m Dr. Tamar Gendler, Dean
of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and professor of philosophy, psychology,
and cognitive science at Yale University. In this video, I’ll be exploring the
idea that the mind is divided into parts, and that conflict among these parts
can be a major cause of unhappiness. Maya used to think she knew
exactly what would make her happy: a high-paying job, marriage,
and a stylish apartment. But studies show that things like these don’t
usually make you happier in the long run. And philosophical arguments
suggest that being happy isn’t the same as having
your desires fulfilled. Yet even though she
doubts her earlier ideas, there is a part of her that still says: Make money! Find romance! Live in style! Why would she still want
these things so much, even though she realizes they
won’t really make her happy? Maya is starting to realize that she
doesn’t really know her own mind very well. Before she can figure
out what happiness is, she has to understand
herself better than she does. [Music] Psychologists think the
mind is divided into parts. These parts can push and pull us in
different directions at the same time. On the Hualapai Indian Reservation
on the western end of the Grand Canyon, there is a horseshoe shaped
transparent glass walkway extending 70 feet
over the canyon rim. Imagine how you would
feel standing on that walkway, 4,000 feet over
the Colorado River. One part of you would know
that you were perfectly safe: thousands of people
do this every year. But another part of you
would be trembling with fear. You might not even be able to
make yourself take the first step. Or suppose you were reading
resumes of job candidates, intending to be completely equitable. Researchers have shown
that, despite this intention, your judgments will still
probably reflect common biases. [Music] You will likely rate candidates
with feminine-sounding names somewhat lower than those
with masculine-sounding names -- even if you think
you’re being totally fair. In both scenarios, one part pushes one
way while another pushes another way. Researchers call the first part System 1. It operates quickly, automatically,
and often unconsciously. You don’t need to think about
whether to be afraid on the walkway. System 1 simply sees the walkway
and screams: THIS IS DANGEROUS!!! System 2 comprises the slow, deliberate, and
reflective processes that require effort: thinking, reasoning,
and deliberating. To know that the walkway is safe,
you have to rely on your past experience, evidence, and understanding of the world. You have to think about it for a minute. These ideas remind
Maya of Sigmund Freud’s distinction between the
conscious and the unconscious. Freud thought that
each of us is born with a bundle of incoherent desires
and needs and passions -- for food, comfort, sex,
comprising what he called the id. Though often unreasonable and inconsistent, they cause us to act in ways
that aim at their satisfaction. He thought we have another part,
the ego, which is sensitive to reality. The ego recognizes that
the id’s drives are incoherent. This recognition doesn’t affect the id. Its drives are impervious to reason. We detect the id’s effects on
our thoughts and behaviors, but we can’t peer into the id itself. From the perspective of the ego, trying to see the id is like
trying to see the bottom of an iceberg while standing
on the chunk above the water. The next time Maya
meets her friend Sophie for a philosophical
conversation over coffee, she is excited to talk
with her about these ideas. Sophie points out that
the idea that we are divided against ourselves
is much older than Freud. In western philosophy, it can be traced back at least as
far as the Greek philosopher Plato, who lived almost 2500 years ago. Plato taught that people
have a divided soul. He compared the soul to a
chariot being pulled by two horses. The driver is reason. That’s the part of us that thinks,
interprets, and reflects about the world. Ideally, like a charioteer, reason
steers the soul in the right direction. The horses represent what
Plato called spirit and appetite. Spirit is generally inclined
to cooperate with reason by pulling the chariot in the
direction reason wants to go. But appetite -- the source of
cravings and desires -- is ornery. “The largest part in each person’s soul,”
it “is by nature the most insatiable.” Appetite wants what it wants. And
often, it doesn’t want to listen to reason. “This means", says Plato,
"that chariot-driving in our case is inevitably a
painfully difficult business”. A strong appetite can overwhelm
the efforts of reason and spirit. Plato tells the
story of Leontius, who noticed some corpses
lying outside the city wall. Plato writes: “He had an
appetite to look at them, but at the same time, he was
disgusted and turned away. For a time he struggled with
himself and covered his face. But finally, overpowered by appetite, he pushed his eyes wide open
and rushed towards the corpses, saying, ‘Look for yourselves, you evil wretches!
Take your fill of the beautiful sight.’” And so Leontius looked at the corpses
-- and was horrified by what he saw. Following appetite’s lead
didn’t make him happy. It disturbed and frustrated him instead. Plato suggests that a person finds authentic happiness by getting their parts in line. He writes: “He regulates well what is his own,
and rules himself, puts himself in order, and harmonizes the three parts of himself
like three limiting notes on a musical scale. And from having been many things” – from having been pulled
in different directions at once -- “you become entirely one,
moderate and harmonious.” Maya certainly knows
how inner conflict feels. She often feels tempted to do
things she thinks she shouldn’t do -- eat a piece of chocolate
cake, check social media -- and struggles with herself
over whether to do them. We all sometimes find ourselves knowing
what is right and condemning what is wrong, and yet nonetheless doing what
goes against our better judgment. Like Leontius, we usually regret it. Conflict among our parts is
a huge barrier to being happy. So maybe Plato was right. Maybe
inner harmony is the key to happiness. What do you think? [Music]