On the "good life"

The most ironic picture I could find when Googling "the good life"

In my post on the Novus-Genesis, I mentioned that I had "a world view that was already radical in that I seriously desired to protect and maintain life on the planet (a desire with a complex origin that's beyond the scope of this post)."  I'll discuss the origin of that desire here.
---
Succinctly, the Novus-Genesis, and all of my aspirations and actions before and beyond it, stem from my will to live a "good life."  In order to understand how and why I live the way I do, you need to grasp my understanding of the former.

Of all philosophic concepts, it seems none has received more discourse, discussion, and criticism, by both ontologists and epistimologists alike, than the "good life."

Like almost every philosopher before myself, I confront the question of what it is to live a "good life," every day.  In fact, a discussion with some close friends about the nature of such a life prompted this post.
---
Just what is it?

I don't know exactly.  But I can guess.  Ironically, of all the concepts I've premised with a Wikipedia citation, Wikipedia is almost silent as to the nature of the "good life."  Now, the Aristotelian interpretation receives more attention, but you'd think, of all the pages on Wikipedia, something as important as living well would receive more public conjecture.

But the lack of public documentation reveals something of the nature of the good life: we're not really sure what it is.  The Wikipedia article illustrates that the concept, yet so important to human beings, remains largely outside the public discourse.  It's the meat of philosophers, even though living well applies to, and is in the interest, of everyone.

Since my definition constantly changes, the one I provide here remains tentative.
---
Throughout my experiences and reflection, I've found a few ways to define it:

Happiness -  many people define living well by living happy.  Defining the "good life" in this way dilutes its definition, as there are as many means to happiness as there are individuals and contexts.  Defining it exclusively as that which makes an individual happy can legitimize a wide range of entirely interpretive and subjective definitions.

Morality - the traditional method of defining a good life based its goodness on its degree of adherence to a morality: a method used by many faiths and peoples throughout the world and its history.  It has been suggested by philosophers and theologians alike that living a good life involves submitting to a moral code or law.  As with defining such a life exclusively by its happiness, defining it entirely by morality also risks interpretivism and subjectivity.  After all, many immoral people seem to be happy and are said to live good lives, and vice versa: many people follow strict moral codes but remain profoundly dissatisfied with their lives and endure undue suffering.

Altrusim -   related to the morality definition, defining the good life as the altruistic life has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and potentially in prehistory.  For example, Jesus is said to have lived a good life because he supposedly lived absolutely altruistically.  To define the good life by its altruism, is to define its goodness by its adherence to a specific morality based on selflessness and self-sacrifice.  Defining it by its degree of altruism highlights how the goodness of your life depends on the goodness of the lives of your community.  To live altruistically is to live in the service of others: to selflessly serve other selves.  There are, of course, problems with defining the good life exclusively by altruism; for example, you can never be sure if your sacrifice will actually serve the lives of others.  (Jesus and his proselytizers seem to have this problem on occasion)

Utilitarianism - a more modern interpretation drawn from hedonism, utilitarians suggest that a good life is one in which individuals "[maximize] happiness and [reduce] suffering." The utilitarian vision extends the "happiness" definition, as a utilitarian version incorporates, like the altruism definition, the collective lives of the community.  Under utilitarianism, the good life is a social concern, in which the sum total lives of a community are good when the collective community maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.  There are numerous problems with this definition of the good life: more than the scope of this post permits.  In brief, utilitarianism taken to it's exclusive extremist logical conclusions, ends in something like Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World.'

Which brings me to...

Self-actualization - I "stole" this concept from psychology, but I find it to be one of the better ways of defining what it means to live a good life, because it consolidates all the other definitions I've mentioned.  Self-actualization is the process and act of living your life to its full potential.  I like the use of self-actualization when describing the characteristics of living well because it's more exhaustive and inclusive.  After all, a good life isn't necessarily always a happy one.  I acknowledged this myself, when I cited Mahatma Ghandi, who suggested that enduring personal suffering can be necessary to living a full life. 
---
 And here's my unified definition:

A good life aspires to happiness, morality, altruism, utilitarianism, and ultimately, self-actualization. 

It is a happy life, but its happiness is the ends, not the means.  In that, not every moment is a happy one: in fact, in order to live morally, an individual may have to suffer.  For example, experiences, reflection, and self-examination can be agitating and painful, but can be endured for a higher purpose: for a greater happiness.

It is a moral life, but its morality depends on the context in which it takes place.  A good life in south-western Ontario in 2013 looks a lot different than a good life in Rome in 400AD.  Further, a moral life in 400AD Rome is different than a moral life today in London Ontario.  (Whether or not there actually is an objective morality separate from all physical entities is way beyond the scope of this post.)  At best, we can define a moral life as one which aspires to define the, and be, moral.

It is an altruistic life, but its altruism is limited.  After all, you'd probably die in a couple days if you lived absolutely altruistically, because you'd likely give away the resources necessary for your own survival.  In order to maximize your selflessness over a greater length of time, you have to maintain your health.

It is a utilitarian life, but its utilitarianism extends beyond the self, to all living and potentially living entities.  But again, like happiness, utilitarianism is the ends, not the means.  An individual living a good life aspires to maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering of their community; however, the maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering may, and probably will, require some form of pain and suffering.

Finally, it is a self-actualizing life, but its self-actualization is always tentative.  Self-actualization is constantly renegotiated, because like a moral life, the self-actualization of a life depends on the context within which it is lived, and these contexts are constantly changing.  There's only so much you can do with the resources and environment at your disposal.  Further, happiness, morality, altruism, and utilitarianism consolidate in self-actualization, because living a life to it's full potential depends on that individual's happiness, morality, altruism, and utilitarianism.  Self-actualization is the terminus of carpe diem: it is living each moment as if it were your last: or more optimistically, your first.  I've defined self-actualization in the past as living each moment because it needed to be lived that way.
---
This post is already way longer than I would have liked, and there's still so much more I could say on this topic, but I'll sum it up as this: the good life is a process, context specific, and tentative.  I'd argue, as with wisdom, that if you're absolutely certain you've got it, you're probably far from it.  I myself aspire to such a life, but I'm always hesitant to say I'm actually living it, because my definition has changed so much, and will likely continue to change.

I'd love to hear other interpretations and understandings of the "good life" in the comments; I'm still learning too.