For the Benefit of the Other

Venezuela, the Pursuit of Happiness and the 30 Years War

The recent assault of U.S. special forces on Venezuela has demonstrated a ruthless return to a might-makes-right attitude and utter disregard of core principles of International Law. The Peace of Westphalia, negotiated almost 400 years ago, following destruction and death by 30 years of war, had introduced the principle of National Sovereignty, a concept which Matthew Ehret demonstrated in his Rising Tide Foundation lecture, was “a Shift in Universal History” for the benefit of mankind.

Just how important this event had been, I did not understand until very recently. Important as the Concept of National Sovereignty may be, it was not the most valuable principle which the Peace of Westphalia codified. In fact, the violation of National Sovereignty is only possible if another, and first principle of the Westphalian Peace treaty is forgotten. That of the benefit of the other, which of course is tied to “the pursuit of happiness” as a human right!

The Pursuit of the Meaning of Happiness

Long before the operation against Venezuela had I become interested in the question of why, in my ‘modern’ German today, do we almost exclusively talk about ‘good luck’ [Glück] rather than ‘happiness’ [Glückseligkeit] in its original sense. Even in the English, the word “happiness” has lost its transcending objectivity and has morphed into an equivalent of mere materialistic, subjective “wellbeing”, as the UN’s “World Happiness Report” exemplifies. Is this just a linguistic ‘fad’, or is there more to it than that, I wondered. Below, I would like to report on the results of my research. The turn of the year is of course particularly suitable for this, because on this occasion we wish each other (or for ourselves) ‘happiness’. But the topic is ‘classic’, i.e. timelessly relevant, so I will continue to be available to anyone interested in discussing this.

This much I can reveal here: ‘Happiness’ is a principle of great significance, which the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (like others before him) reflected on more than 300 years ago.

Leibniz was deeply affected by the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War. He himself was born in 1646, two years before the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück on the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The dove of peace on the portal of Osnabrück Town Hall

This peace was truly “a Shift in Universal History”. Not only did it end a long and destructive war, which was ostensibly fought over questions of faith and differences between Catholic and Protestant Christians, but the Peace of Westphalia also laid the foundation for the coexistence of people as a whole. In Article One it laid the foundation of international law:

‘This [peace] shall be sincerely and earnestly observed and respected, so that each party may promote the benefit, honour and advantage of the other (ut utraque pars alterius utilitatem, honorem ac commodum promoveat)’.

Leibniz made this principle the guiding principle of his actions throughout his life: to promote the benefit and advantage of others! And he derived the concept of happiness (as a logical consequence) from this: if everyone strives to promote the advantage of their opponent, or neighbor, then happiness will inevitably be pursued. Indirectly, this improves the quality of life of all people, also in material terms, but above all, it makes our interactions with one another truly human. Why?

Objectifying the Situation

Well, in order to promote the benefit of others, it is a basic requirement to understand them! When I put myself in my opponent’s shoes and try to understand him (or her), I become much more quickly aware of how my actions (or inactions) must affect him. This means that I am not only interested in his benefit, but also will become more self-aware. Not only do I have a moral duty to behave in the interests of my counterpart, but I also understand emotionally (or empathically, because I have put myself ‘in their shoes’) why this is the right thing to do.

Or to put it another way: it is about objectifying one’s own position. I am the active (or inactive) subject . And the other person is the object to which I must relate through my actions or inactions. This is where the almost forgotten meaning of the term ‘objective’ is rooted. Objectively means: from the perspective of the person affected by my actions. Or from the perspective of the object of my (subjective) thoughts.

The result is initially a paradox, because different interests arise. Freedom and necessity are paradoxically opposed to each other. The freedom to act as I wish and the necessity to consider the interests of my fellow human beings (or competitors, or neighbouring countries). For, as a human being, I cannot sustain living on my own. Human beings are relational beings and necessarily depend on shaping their relationships with each other in a prosperous (and fair) manner.

Pierre Beaudry, to whom I owe the translation of Leibniz’s text on happiness from the original French, sees this — quite rightly, in my opinion — as the basis of a republican social order (as opposed to a feudal one, in which there are different classes). Referring to Beethoven and Schiller, he writes:

‘In his “Ode to Joy”, Beethoven celebrated the same idea of internalising the position of the other that Schiller had originally identified in his “Ode to Freedom”, for in the political geometry in which “beggars are a princes brother ”, joy is the name of freedom.’

It is the highest form of freedom, which depends on art, as the ideal of beauty, goodness and truth, to be achieved. This is precisely what Schiller’s ‘Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man’ are about.

What Schiller means when he writes that freedom can only be achieved ‘through beauty’ becomes clearer: it is about the potential conflict between the two basic human characteristics, sensitivity and intellect, emotion and rationality. What is special about human beings is their intellect. It distinguishes them from animals, with which humans share sensitivity.

As beings, humans are capable of rationally understanding that peace (or peaceful coexistence) is only possible in the long term if we internalise the position and interests of others (our neighbours, our opponents) and strive for their benefit. Wars and conflicts arise when we seek our own advantage first and do not care about what benefits others.

Emotionally, however, humans are driven by fears, anger or greed, which cause them to put their own advantage above all else and see others as competitors or even an existential threat.

Schiller recognises this paradox when, around 1790, he observes how the French Revolution, which began with the ideal of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’, descends into an orgy of violence. Says his biographer and sister-in-law, Caroline von Wolzogen:

“‘[The poet Salis’] accounts [of the scenes of horror] and Wilhelm's letter dampened our joy at the storming of the Bastille terribly,’ says Karoline von Wolzogen (p. 185), ‘and we became anxious about the safety of our friend [Wilhelm von Wolzogen] in that volcano of rebellious passions. Schiller had already taken these events seriously and with foreboding when they first arose; he did not consider the French to be a people capable of genuine republican sentiments.’”

This prompts Schiller to write his Aesthetic Letters, which he publishes in 1795. It is his contribution to peace and brotherhood among people. Throughout his life (and through his work even beyond his death), Schiller remains a great philanthropist and ‘poet of freedom’.

In order for the ideal of true freedom to be realised, the paradoxical, seemingly opposing tendencies of human emotionality and human rationality must be resolved. He writes in the 13th letter:

“At first glance, nothing seems to be more opposed to each other than the tendencies of these two drives (...). It is true that their tendencies contradict each other, but, it should be noted, not in the same objects, and what does not meet cannot clash with each other. (...) They are therefore not naturally opposed to each other, and if they appear to be so, it is only because they have freely transgressed nature by misunderstanding themselves and confusing their spheres.”

In other words, Schiller does not deny the weaknesses of human nature that lead to war or terror. But he understands where they come from. He takes the position of the other! Conflicts are the result of a ‘confusion of spheres’. People who fear for their lives cannot be appeased by arguments or laws. Greed and anger cannot be curbed by reason either. On the other hand, cold-bloodedness is a ‘confusion’ of reason. The cold-blooded person lacks compassion, but no emotional reaction can free him from his delusion of doing ‘the reasonable thing’. It is regrettable and bad, but it must first be understood ‘from the position of the other’.

Schiller describes the dilemma vividly:

‘It is just as difficult to determine whether our practical philanthropy is disturbed and cooled more by the vehemence of our desires or by the rigidity of our principles, more by the egoism of our senses or by the egoism of our reason.’

So it does not matter what principles one professes to uphold; if one is not able or willing to take the position of the other and understand them, no prosperous coexistence, no freedom is possible in the long run. Says Schiller:

“However praiseworthy our maxims may be, how can we be fair, kind and humane towards others if we lack the ability to take in foreign nature faithfully and truthfully, to appropriate foreign situations, to make foreign feelings our own? But this ability is suppressed both in the education we receive and in the education we give ourselves, to the same extent that one seeks to break the power of desires and strengthen character through principles.”

How to muster Hope for the Future

According to Schiller, the solution to this conflict is offered by beauty:

“It is the task of culture to secure the limits of each of these two drives, which is therefore indebted to both in equal measure and must assert not only the rational drive against the sensual, but also the sensual against the rational. Its task is therefore twofold: firstly, to protect sensuality against the encroachments of freedom; secondly, to secure personality against the power of emotions. It achieves the former by training the faculty of feeling, the latter by training the faculty of reason.”

Education is therefore enormously important, and it must be an education that deals with classical ideals, that shapes character by taking both sides of humanity seriously and developing them to their full potential:

“This operation then also constitutes for the most part what is called forming a human being, in the best sense of the word, where it means working on the inner, not just the outer, human being. A person formed in this way will, of course, be protected from being and appearing to be raw nature; but at the same time, they will be armoured against all feelings of nature by principles, and humanity from outside will be just as unable to affect them as humanity from within.‘

The pursuit of happiness, as developed by Leibniz, is primarily about the ’benefit of the other”. Being able to recognise this in our mind and relate it to one’s own interests leads to a convergence of opposites, which are only superficial opposites, but on a higher level are common prerequisites. For example, the need to be considerate of one another in social or family life.

Being fully human, consequently, requires a willingness to seek the advantage of others. To practise charity. Agapē, devoted, self-sacrificial love. Passion, like happiness, is a term that is hardly understood anymore. To love passionately means to seek the advantage of others. Because that is the way in which everyone ‘wins’, because that is the only way the ‘infinite game’ can continue.

Prometheus being attacked by the Eagle after being chained to a rock by Zeus for bringing Fire (Reason) to mankind. Marble group by Nicolas Sebastien Adam, Louvre