실존감으로서의 행복 ― 통합적 행복모델을 향하여

국문 초록 (Abstract)

행복/웰빙에 대한 담론이 활성화되고 있다. 예로부터 사람들은 ‘행복’이란 무엇이고, 행복에 영향을 미치는 요소들은 무엇이며, 그리고 행복한 삶을 위해서는 어떠한 삶을 살아야 하고, 어떤 삶의 조건이 갖춰져야 하는가 등을 물었고, 헤도니즘적, 에우데모니아/푸르덴셜 행복이론, 비교이론, 자기결정이론 혹은 주관주의적, 객관주의적, 상대주의적, 절대주의적 행복이론, 감정적, 인지적 행복이론, 셋 포인트 행복이론, 진정성이론 등 다양한 행복이론들이 출현했으며 그리고 흥분적 자극, 쾌감, 즐거움, 만족, 평온, 성취, 유용성, 안녕감/웰빙, 삶의 질 등 다양한 행복개념들이 쏟아졌다. 그런데 이들을 통합할 행복모델은 가능한가? 본고가 답하고자 묻는 질문이다. 본고에서 필자는 행복의 정의를 개인/심적 차원이 아닌 인간 삶/실존 차원에 정위시켜 ‘실존적 활성화’와 관련시켜 논하면서, 행복(감)을 실존적 활성화의 부산물로서의 느낌, 즉 실존적 활성감 혹은 실존감으로 규정한다. 이러한 행복개념의 제시에 있어 중요한 역할을 하는 것이 (실존적) ‘비평형체계’(non-equilibrium) 및 ‘실존적 셋 포인트’ 개념이다. 필자는 비평형체계를 자기유지를 위한 수단을 자체 내에 구비하고 있으면서, 환경과 구분되는 자기폐쇄적인 구조를 가지고 있는 시스템을 지칭하며, 그리고 유지되어야 할 비평형상태의 수준을 ‘실존적 셋 포인트’라 칭한다. 두 개념을 필자는 실존체계에다 적용해 실존적 비평형체계와 실존적 셋 포인트를 규정한다. 실존적 비평형계의 셋 포인트는 사람들이 지향하는 하나의 존재론적 지향점이다. 그리고 현실 상황은 그것을 가능케 할 수도 있고, 그렇지 못할 수도 있다. 실존적 셋 포인트와 현실 간의 일치를 통한 실존적 활성화가 곧 행복으로 이해되는 동안, 일치의 다양한 역학적 양상과의 관계에서 다양한 행복의 종류들 및 다양한 행복의 생멸메커니즘이 논의된다. 그리고 이 논의의 결과를 기존의 다양한 행복이론 및 행복개념들과 비교하는 가운데, 편재되어 있는 행복이론 및 개념들의 통합적 상관관계를 제시한다. 여타의 다양한 행복개념들은 결국 실존감의 다양한 양상들로 이해된다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently in many areas, it has been discussed on happiness or well-being. People ask, what is happiness, what are the factors that influence the happiness of people, how must live people to be happy, and what conditions must be provided for our happy life. Until now, various theories about happiness have been developed. For example, hedonistic theory, eudaimonia / prudential theory, comparison theory, self-determination theory, subjective and objective theory, emotional and cognitive theory, set-point theory of happiness, authentic theory, etc. Accordingly the concept of happiness is understood in various ways, such as pleasure, excitement, joy, contentment, peace, fulfillment, serenity, utility, comfort, well-being, quality of life, etc.. Before we answer the question of how we have to live to be happy, and what are the conditions of the happy life, we must first answer the questions, such as what is happiness and what is the nature of happiness. The former is a theoretical question of happiness, while the latter is a definitional question of happiness. And the former depends on the latter. But the diversity of the concept of happiness leads also to the production of various strategies of happiness, which often conflict each other. In this context a reexamination of the concept of happiness is necessary. In this paper, I discuss the concept of happiness, not on the mental dimension, but on the existential dimension, as a sort of existential feeling, i.e. as a sort of existential sense, which is a byproduct of life activity/activation. But in this definition of happiness two concepts play an important role; the non-equilibrium system and the set-point. What I mean with the former is a system which is self-closed and maintained by himself, whereas his systemic characteristic distinguishes from his environment. And what I mean with the latter is a certain level of non-equilibrium state, maintaining of which is necessary for the sustaining of the system. I apply these concepts to the existential world/system, and call each of it existential non-equilibrium and existential set-point. The set-point of existential system is a point, at which people are thriving. In this sense it is a normative one. But real existential status of people can correspond to it or not. And the case of non-corresponding divides into two cases; the case in which existential status of people lies below of it and the case in which it lies above it. Gaps between the two can be disappeared again by upward adjustment or improvement of the existential status of the people, by downward adjustment of the existential set-point and by sharing/distribution of the spare of existential resources with/unto environment like another poor people/animal. And in the case of resetting of existential set-point to the higher level, the gap between it and existential status of people can be disappeared by an another improvement of existential status of the people. Whereas the correspondence between the two is understood as state of happiness, i.e. of existential flourishing, various kinds of happiness can be defined according to the ways of the filling of gaps between the two. I close the paper with some comments on the matter of the theoretical question of happiness such as question about the factors that affect happiness, and question about how can we live to be happy. Even though these issues are beyond the scope of this paper, my discussion of happiness gives at least some important hints concerning with the question, how we can handle them.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 요약문
• 1. 머리말
• 2. 실존적 비평형체계와 실존적 셋 포인트(set-point)
• 3. 실존적 셋 포인트와 현실 상황 간의 관계양상
• 4. 행복개념의 스펙트럼
• 5. 기존 행복이론들과의 관계
• 6. 맺는 말
• 참고문헌
• Abstract